Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Fife County Council (to be proceeded with under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act) presented by Mr. Woodburn; read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Monday, 14th November, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

Orders of the Day — NURSES BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(PENALIZATION OF ACTS FALSELY IMPLYING INCLUSION IN THE LIST.)

Any person who, not being a person whose name is included in the list, takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that his name is so included shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, ten pounds, and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, fifty pounds.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause is to impose penalties on persons who falsely represent themselves as being included in the list of nurses kept under Section 18 of the 1943 Act. It will be remembered that this matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond). At that time, I resisted his proposal that we should impose these penalties as we were desirous, while we understood the difficulties of the position, that we should not use this occasion to impose new penalties, particularly in view of the fact that the list

was gradually going out of existence. As the matter had been raised and ventilated in the House, the point obviously gained further publicity, and, on reconsideration, we felt it desirable to include this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We on this side do not propose to raise any objection to the inclusion of the new Clause. While in general deprecating the creation of new offences, we welcome the sign of grace on the part of the Government that at last, though they mourn the necessity of it, they carry out the Act. We feel, however, that there is great uneasiness among professional people in case a list like this, which it is a life's work to get on to, should be falsified by unauthorised persons. Consequently, I think that under the circumstances the weight of argument is in favour of the inclusion of the Clause.

Mr. Diamond: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this new Clause, which entirely satisfies the point I have in mind. I realise that it was through my intervention that more publicity was given to this point than would otherwise have been the case. But I am sure that my hon. Friend will think that that intervention was not in the worst possible form, and that this new Clause will improve the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(THE TRAINING COMMITTEE.)

(1) The Council shall appoint a training committee consisting of members of the Council.
(2) The number of members of the training committee and their term of office shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under subsection (1) of section three of the Act of 1919.
(3) Any matter relating to the training of nurses (other than a matter referred to the finance committee under section eight or to the Mental Nurses Committee under section nine of this Act) shall stand referred to the training committee and any other matter may be referred by the Council to that committee; and the committee shall consider the matter and report upon it to the Council, and the Council, before taking any action on the matter, shall, unless in the opinion of the Council the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the committee.


(4) The power of the Council under paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of section three of the Act of 1919 to make rules for authorising the delegation to committees of the powers of the Council and for regulating the proceedings (including quorum) of committees shall be exercisable in relation to the training committee.—[Mr. Howard.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new Clause is to restore a balance in the Bill which I think has got slightly unbalanced in the course of its passage through another place and through the various stages in this House. Perhaps I should make an apology to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department for the late date at which this Clause appeared on the Order Paper, but the purpose of it was raised in the Second Reading Debate, and the Department are well aware of its object. Also, because the Minister's own Amendments appeared on the Order Paper only the day before yesterday, I was still hoping that a similar Clause would be down in his name, and I deferred putting down this one for that reason.
In any form of social service there is bound to be a pull in different directions. Those engaged in the service always want to do more and those responsible for finding the money always wonder where it is possible to find it. This is especially true in any circumstance where vitality is dependent on constant experiment and research. My purpose is to make it perfectly clear that when it is a question of what is professionally desirable for the training of nurses, there should be a recognised independent professional body which will declare its views. Then there will be set up under this Bill another statutory committee which will deal with the financial affairs, and, finally, the power of the Minister remains unimpaired.
I regret that the General Nursing Council have taken unto themselves financial powers of a character which are more apparent than real, because it may adversely affect the discharge of their professional duties. It is true that this is a machinery Bill but as a result we have been rather inclined to discuss the detailed parts of the machine and

possibly to lose sight of the main purpose of this Bill, which is:
… to reconstitute the General Nursing Council … and to make further provision with respect to the training of nurses …
We are setting up within the General Nursing Council a statutory committee to deal with finance and a statutory committee to deal with mental nursing, but there is no statutory committee to deal with the most important function of all, which is the general supervision and improvement of the training of nurses over the whole field.
I have made this point on previous occasions and I do not wish to labour it, but I hope that even now the Ministry will see the advantages which would accrue from accepting this Clause. Whether this Bill works or not will depend upon whether the reconstituted General Nursing Council can get the full support and confidence of the profession. My fear is that they will find themselves placed in a position where it will be thought that something which is desirable for nurses has been turned down on financial grounds. If those responsible for the institution where nurse-training is carried out once get the idea that when they go to discuss a professional matter with the General Nursing Council they are not discussing it with a professional body but with a body which is merely an agent of the Treasury, their prestige will be lowered and their power for doing the thing which this Bill is intended to do will be minimised to that extent.
I am sorry if I feel so strongly on this point that my arguments may have been a little ragged. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this Clause, because I am convinced that it is desirable to achieve the purposes of this Bill in regard to which all sides of the House were in unanimous agreement.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has moved this Motion With obvious feeling, which I (share. This Bill has much in it that is excellent, and yet on this side of the House we are gravely concerned about the essential change it is making in the character of the General Nursing Council. That Council is now ceasing to be an independent professional body and, as regards 50 per cent. of its activities, is becoming a


paying agent of the Treasury. Once it becomes a function of Government administration, once it finds itself partially integrated into the Government machine, it is in danger of losing a great deal of the authority and independence which is absolutely essential for the maintenance of the standards of a great profession.
We seem to have been unable to move the Parliamentary Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that fundamental change which is being made, a change which will weaken the status of the General Nursing Council in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the profession.

Mr. Blenkinsop: indicated dissent.

Mr. Linstead: I know that we differ. In this proposed new Clause my hon. Friend is seeking to do the next best thing. He is saying, in effect, that if we cannot keep the paying agency outside the functions of the Council, we should at least separate, within the ambit of the Council, the agency functions of the Government from the educational functions proper to a professional body, and that we should do so by the outward and visible sign of creating a finance committee to act as paymaster for the Treasury—which is what is comes to—and an education committee to act as the body prescribing the professional standards.
In that way we should do something, although we do not think enough, to redress the balance and cure the fundamental mistake which is being made of handing part of the Minister's functions directly over to a professional body and destroying its balance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and possibly the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) who, in a sense, speaks here for the General Nursing Council, if they are not able to accept this proposed Clause, will at least tell us that the spirit behind it is appreciated within the General Nursing Council, and that they will do their utmost to make certain that the two functions are kept separate so that one does not get confused with the other to the detriment of the main purpose for which the Council was created.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I certainly appreciate the way in which the hon. Members opposite have raised this matter and I

do not complain about the lateness of the appearance of the Clause on the Order Paper. On the other hand, I do not share the anxiety of hon. Members on this point because the reconstituted General Nursing Council will be a much stronger and more authoritative body than perhaps the General Nursing Council of the past has been to meet the new responsibilities which it has to face.
My anxiety is to avoid in this Measure such provisions as will unduly restrict and hamper the work of that newly-constituted body. It is a had principle in general to fetter unduly this type of public body in the way in which it is to work, because in whatever way we may set down machinery—and it is set down in some detail in the new Clause—situations are bound to arise which call for a variation. What is more, under the present rules of the Council provision is made for an education and examination committee, for example, and the rules constituting it must be approved by my right hon. Friend and laid before Parliament. At the same time, its constitution and procedure can be altered at any time by an amendment of the rules as circumstances may require.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has used the word "fetter." Would he elaborate on that and explain, in view of what he has said, how the new Clause could possibly fetter the discretion of the General Nursing Council?

Mr. Blenkinsop: It seems to me that this is the main function of the General Nursing Council and it is quite clear that they will set up a committee, as they have done in the past, to look after this feature of their work; but it must always be regarded as the main work of the Council. We have already gone as far as we ought to go in sub-dividing statutorily the General Nursing Council.
We have tried to meet the point which hon. Members opposite have raised by giving power to my right hon. Friend to make appointments to the Finance Committee. If we go beyond that, we are endangering the liberty of the Council. I should be very sorry if we were statutorily to divide up the General Nursing Council into these hard-and-fast statutory committees throughout the whole of their work, which would not be to the benefit of their operation.
I appreciate the point which the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard) has raised and the desirability of doing what we can to separate the two issues, but when we try to particularise we strike, as we found in another place, other difficulties which override the particular issue which the hon. Member is raising. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will not press the Clause, but will accept my assurance that this is a matter that we will certainly examine carefully when the rules are being made; and in a friendly way, in discussion with the General Nursing Council, I am sure we can satisfy the main object of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Diamond: I should like to welcome the sympathetic and considerate thought which has been given by the hon. Members for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard), and Putney (Mr. Linstead), who put down the new Clause, to the welfare of the Council and to seeing that the Council shall function as everybody intends it to function. I do not share the fear of the hon. Member for Putney about the effect of the Bill on the status or ability of the Council to perform a very useful function. As to this particular point, I can tell the hon. Member that the Council as at present constituted—no one can speak of the future Council—certainly recognises this to be its main function.
As far as the committees are concerned—I have a list of them before me—the hon. Members will be interested to know that, with the exception of the education and examination committee, which of course carries out the function which hon. Gentlemen opposite would now define in this way, the membership of the committees is limited to eight or less; but that the education and examination committee has a membership of 12, half as many again as any other committee, including the finance committee. It is clear, therefore, that the Council, not only those members on it at present but those who may be on the reconstituted Council in the future, recognise that this work is the main function of the Council.
Hon. Members opposite have therefore done a valuable service in giving an opportunity for these facts to be made clear and to be stated with such authority as one can in these circumstances pro-

duce. I feel, however, with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that one does not necessarily add a great deal to the usefulness of a committee by placing it in a statute and therefore making it a statutory committee. As long as one realises what the function of the committee is, it would on the whole be a pity to place in the statute words which make it in any way difficult, in any administrative sense, to appoint to the committee, to define its function or membership, and in particular to alter that definition from time to time as the work of the committee becomes greater, less or more varied. To the extent that it would make it more difficult for the work of the committee to be carried out effectively, it would be on the whole a pity that the Council should be, even to that small extent, limited in carrying out its work as it sees best.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: It will be clear to the House that we on this side have a good many apprehensions about the result of passing finance and training through the General Nursing Council, but that is now agreed and no question of that arises on the new Clause. The issue is, therefore, how we are to make that arrangement work for the best. The result of the arrangement is that the General Nursing Council will have two functions, which have been very fully described by my hon. Friends: the functions of training and of finance.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that as the function of training was the principal function—I think that was what he said—that was a matter for the Council as a whole and that it would be wrong to lay down any method by which they should do it, and that as finance was a relatively subsidiary matter it would be dealt with by a statutory committee. That was not a very realistic view. It seems to me inevitable that the Council must, both in training and in finance, operate through committees, and the fact that finance is to be dealt with through a statutory committee is bound to attract more emphasis to that function than to training. It is obviously a late hour of the day to consider our proposal, and it is too late to ask the Government to look at the matter again, because there will be no further opportunity on the consideration of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there will be discussions between him and the General Nursing Council before the scheme begins to operate, and he has indicated that he will make certain that the views and fears expressed in the House this morning are taken into consideration when the new set-up is being prepared. We shall have to be satisfied with that assurance, although with a good deal of apprehension; and we hope very much that the Government will be sure to see that everything is done to avoid the kind of risks which have been expressed by my hon. Friends. It may, of course, be possible for these factors, if need be, to be taken into account if and when the introduction of amending legislation should be necessary.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: All hon. Members will fully appreciate the high objects and the high ideals of hon. Members opposite who have brought forward the Clause, but I believe that on the whole the Clause would be undesirable. The object of the Bill is to separate nurse-training from the administration of the hospitals. We admit that that will not be possible at first, but we all hope that by gradual stages it will be achieved. If that is to be achieved, a great deal of fluidity in connection with the work of both the General Nursing Council and the standing nurse-training committees is essential. That is recognised by Clause 3, which gives the right of experiment in connection with nurse-training. Anything which will in any way bind the General Nursing Council or the standing nurse-training committees may make it more difficult for that gradual transition to take place. Although I appreciate the high ideals which have prompted the Clause, I believe that the Bill will be freer and more fluid without it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As always, the Parliamentary Secretary has been most friendly and understanding on this matter. I am sure that he realises our uneasiness, just as the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) would realise the apprehension in our profession if the General Medical Council were given the administration of the university grants scheme, which

would seem to be an unusual duality of purpose. Of course, this is an experimental body which will have to work its own way and find its own solution. There is nothing derogatory about the idea of a statutory committee, because we enjoy statutory committees in connection with important local government bodies, such as education committees.
I can see the point of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) that fluidity ought to be preserved in the early stages and that prescribing numbers, and so on, in a statute sometimes produces a fettering effect when these things have to be altered. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that this will be very carefully examined when the rules are made, and for the moment we must be satisfied with that.
We do not intend to divide the House on this Clause. It is a matter not for division but for argument. The final responsibility must lie with the Minister. We merely trust that our fears will prove to be unfounded. We ask the Minister to take carefully into consideration the arguments that have been adduced with so much sincerity and to draw the rules when they are made to the attention of my hon. Friends, because, owing to the flood of paper which pours over us from time to time, the rules may easily escape their attention. I am sure that the Minister will be anxious to have the skilled criticism which my hon. Friends can afford when the rules are made. I take it that my hon. Friend will ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. Howard: I bow to the inevitable, Mr. Speaker, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(STANDING NURSE-TRAINING COMMITTEES.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BLENKINSOP:
In page 2, line 29, leave out "a 'standing," and insert "an 'area.

Mr. Speaker: The series of Amendments, of which this is the first, substitutes the name "area nurse-training com-


mittees" for the name "standing nurse-training committees." I have received an assurance that this change does not extend the objects or purposes of any grant of money, or relax any conditions or qualifications thereon, in the Bill as it left the Committee. I am satisfied that this is so and I call the Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "a 'standing," and to insert "an 'area."
This is one of a series of Amendments which it would probably be for the convenience of the House to take together. They arise from the interesting discussion which we had in Committee last Friday when an attempt was made to find an alternative name for the standing nurse-training committees. I do not suggest that we have reached an ideal solution here, but we have at least tried to meet the point put by hon. Members. We feel that at any rate "standing" ought to be withdrawn from the name. There were obvious difficulties about the word "regional." We did not want to connect this too closely with the regional hospital boards as these committees are quite separate bodies. Therefore, we are proposing to call the committees "area nurse-training committees" which I hope will be acceptable to the House generally.

Mr. Linstead: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary in his role of assistant godfather for having made another attempt at christening this child. I agree with him that, although the proposal is not ideal, it is substantially good.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 33, leave out "a standing," and insert "the area."

In page 3, line 15, leave out "A standing," and insert "An area."

In line 15, leave out "for a hospital area."

In line 22, leave out "standing," and insert "area."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 3.—(EXPERIMENTAL TRAINING OF NURSES.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 34, leave out from "area," to end of line 35.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 4.—(EXPENDITURE ON NURSE-TRAINING BY HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES, ETC.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 11, leave out from beginning, to "expenditure," in line 12.

In line 14, leave out first "the," and insert "a hospital."

In line 15, leave out "the," and insert "a hospital."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to insert:
incurred in respect of an institution approved by the Council for the purposes of the training rules and.
Clause 4 deals with the expenditure on nurse-training by hospital management committees and by boards of governors of teaching hospitals, which expenditure relates to the training of nurses and provides that it shall be defrayed by the nurse-training committee. I regard this Amendment, as often happens to those who put down Amendments, as of fundamental importance, and I hope that I shall satisfy the House that that is not an unreasonable statement having regard to the misapprehension which I find is widespread with regard to the essential working of the whole of the Bill.
It has been pointed out from the other side of the House in a most helpful way, and in other places, that the Bill will not achieve what every one desires it to achieve if the Council, whose primary function is the setting of standards, finds that it is embarrassed by a clash between its financial function of helping in a measure to provide the wherewithal for the standards being reached and its main function of improving training facilities and approving hospitals for the purposes of training once that standard has been reached.
It is therefore clear that the Council should not at any time be required to consider any estimate unless that estimate relates to a hospital which has already reached the necessary standards and has, therefore, already been approved by the Council for the purposes of nurse training. It is essential that that should be so, and I believe it to be the intention on all sides that that should be carried out when the Bill comes into operation, but I do not find in the Bill any Clause which makes it clear beyond doubt that


that is the way the machinery is intended to work.
I have therefore put forward my Amendment to make it clear that the expenditure to be considered under Clause 4 is only that expenditure which is incurred in respect of an institution approved by the Council for the purpose of the training rules. Until they are sure that the hospital is so approved, any expenditure which it may wish to incur and have approved by way of estimates cannot be obtained through the General Nursing Council but must be reimbursed and the estimate must be approved in some other form and by some other machinery.
I hope that I am right in saying that that is the understanding and the whole intention. If that intention is carried out it will relieve anxiety on both sides of the House about this duality of function, I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for my hon. Friend either to accept this Amendment or to show me somewhere or other in the Bill where it is made clear beyond all shadow of doubt that that is the way in which the Bill is intended to work.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) has already shown in his clear statement that these apprehensions are bound to occur unless the Minister can, by accepting the Amendment, or in the statement he now makes, be quite certain that a clarification of the whole position is given to the House.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Again I fully appreciate the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) has raised, and I am quite satisfied that I can give him the assurance which he desires. It is quite true that Clause 4 does not specifically refer to training which is in accordance with the Council's training rules, but if my hon. Friend will refer to Clause 6 he will see that it is there clearly stated:
All expenses incurred by an area nurse-training committee with the approval of the Council shall be defrayed by the Council.
We are quite satisfied that makes the position clear and that it would be entirely within the powers of the Council to decline to approve any expenditure

in training which is not in accordance with their rules. There can be no doubt about that. I imagine that there should be no risk of those responsible for other forms of training being misled as the Council will no doubt make its policy clear at the outset. With that assurance, which I give quite clearly to my hon. Friend, that the matter is fully covered under Clause 6, I trust that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Diamond: Is my hon. Friend equally quite satisfied that in the case of those hospitals which carry on nurse training of a different type which is not and can never in the present form be approved by the General Nursing Council, proper machinery exists for them to be reimbursed without going to the General Nursing Council? Is he, therefore, satisfied that the General Nursing Council will never be embarrassed by applications from that kind of hospital?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I can give that assurance. It is not the intention that such an application should go through the General Nursing Council.

Mr. Linstead: The point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) illustrates the sort of difficulty which my hon. Friends and myself foresee. I do not think that this matter will in practice be so simple and clear-cut as the Parliamentary Secretary suggests. There are surely bound to be institutions which are on the border line and in respect of which the General Nursing Council cannot give unqualified approval then and there, but is bound to say, "If you do certain things in the next year or two years we are prepared to give you approval." In order that those things may be done, that training institution has to find the finance, and so far as I can see it can only obtain that finance through the area committee and ultimately through the General Nursing Council.
11.45 a.m.
I was perturbed when the hon. Member for Blackley suggested that no finance would be forthcoming for nurse training except in respect of institutions already approved. That seems to me to crystalise and sterilise everything. We shall face the situation that those institutions which are approved on a particular day are the only ones which can through this channel


obtain money for nurse training. I am sure that that cannot be the intention of the General Nursing Council or the Ministry. New schools must surely be opened, and there will for two or three years be a fluid period during which experiments will be tried. So far as I can see, the Minister has no channel for financing those experiments other than through this machinery which the Bill is now creating.
I hope that the Minister can say a few words about that and help us to see how experimental training schemes, when they are being built up to the stage justifying approval, are to be financed. The managers of those schemes cannot finance them and the General Nursing Council is apparently not prepared to finance them. Are we crystalising matters today or are there some transitional provisions which would enable the development to take place? I hope that the Minister or the hon. Member for Blackley can give us some guidance on this point, which seems to be fundamental.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was worried about this point before the Second Reading of the Bill, and during the Parliamentary Secretary's speech on the Second Reading I interrupted him to ask:
Could the hon. Gentleman take the matter a little further? Would it be possible for a hospital to incur expenditure on the training of nurses which was not approved by the standing committee? Is prior approval an essential to the recovery of such payments, and is it possible to recover money spent without prior approval?
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
I take it that prior approval will be required, as I think it ought to be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 960–961.]
So that the Parliamentary Secretary clearly had it in mind that prior approval by what is now the area committee will be required for any training expenditure before that expenditure can be undertaken.
He has now said that there will be cases when approval by the Council of expenditure undertaken by a hospital will not be necessary. There seems to me to be a gap somewhere here, and I do not see how that gap is to be filled. It is a real difficulty. There is no point at issue between the two sides of the House in this matter. It is merely that it occurs to us that something is missing in the

machinery, and neither the hon. Member for Blackley nor the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated how that hiatus is to be filled. I hope that before the Bill leaves the House we shall have that point clarified.

Mr. Diamond: It would be immodest of me to ask leave of the House to speak again—

Mr. Speaker: That leave must be sought and granted before an hon. or right hon. Gentleman can speak a second time at this stage. Not even the Minister can speak a second time except by leave of the House.

Mr. Diamond: Perhaps I might commit that immodesty and ask leave of the House to speak again in view of the invitation extended to me by the hon. Member, in order to explain that this "gap" really does not exist. I hope that hon. Members will keep in their minds a clear distinction between experimental training and training in approved hospitals. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind the difficulty which may arise in the matter of a non-approved hospital becoming approved I can assure him that it is something which happens all the time and the machinery for that would be continued.
The hospital requiring approval would in the normal way in future—not quite in the old way—get in touch with the area nurse-training committee and submit its application to that committee. That will come before the Council and if the Council are carrying out their normal function and are satisfied in regard to the matter, they will express their approval and communicate with the area standing committee of the hospital concerned. Until that approval has been granted, no estimates referring to training carried on at the hospital would come before the General Nursing Council.

Mr. Linstead: Before approval can be given, such things as blackboards, desks, equipment and accommodation have to be taken into consideration. Where does, the finance for such things come from?

Mr. Diamond: It was that very point which I had in mind when I asked my right hon. Friend for his assurance that there would be proper machinery and a proper route to be followed for applications for money in cases where the


hospital had not yet been approved. I was very glad that he could give me that assurance. Therefore the Council will not be concerned with a hospital until it has actually been approved. Approval is sometimes granted when a hospital has practically reached the necessary standard and all that is required is for certain things to be done over the course of the next few months. In such a case the hospital is told that, provided these things are done during the course of the next year everything will be all right, and approval is granted. That was what the hon. Gentleman called a borderline case.
The other case is that in which the approved hospital is carrying out an experimental training system. If the hospital is approved, the estimate will go to the General Nursing Council in the ordinary way. I am satisfied that it is essential that there should be that clear definition in the point of time at which the estimate has to come before the General Nursing Council. I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear beyond all doubt that the intention and the wording of the Bill carry out that procedure.

Mr. Blenkinsop: if I may speak again with the leave of the House, I should like to say that the Bill leaves the General Nursing Council full discretion to deal with expenditure in the building up of training schools to the required standard, as indeed they always have had. This is a matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) has said, which has constantly come before the General Nursing Council in the past. It will continue to be within their discretion as to precisely at what point they give their approval to a scheme for work to be done over a period in which a particular school has to be built up to a certain standard. That would be generally acceptable. I have also in mind that there are certain forms of examination which are not generally approved by the General Nursing Council at the present time, expenses for which might quite properly be borne by the general hospital administration expenses. I was trying to make that point when I referred to the other channel for expenditure.

Mr. Linstead: I am awfully obtuse about these matters, but I am afraid I can see the hiatus still existing. The

hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) said unequivocally this morning that no money will be made available through the channel of the General Nursing Council except to institutions which have already been approved. I wrote the words down as he said them. Money for the building up process cannot come under maintenance expenditure because it has nothing to do with the staffing of hospitals—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is speaking a second time without asking the leave of the House.

Mr. Linstead: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I trust that the House will give me leave to do so. In one sentence I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say from what source the management committee or board of governors can get money for the building of a school up to the standard required by the General Nursing Council, in view of the fact that the General Nursing Council are not prepared to supply that money until the standard is attained.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to ask the leave of the House to speak again. I think there has been a little misunderstanding. It has been the practice in the past for money to be made available for building up to the standard required. I understand that the general practice has been that the General Nursing Council, subject to certain work being done, has given its approval in certain cases. We must leave responsibility for that approval in the hands of the General Nursing Council. Obviously one cannot say in advance, without knowing the particular circumstances of individual cases, whether that approval will be granted.
We are not making any real change here upon the past position. I am pointing out that there will not be the hiatus that is feared except, of course, that there may be cases which the General Nursing Council feel that they cannot approve even if certain work is done. Obviously that discretion must be in the hands of the General Nursing Council. I was trying also to deal with the point regarding particular examinations, which at the moment should not fall upon the General Nursing Council.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We shall need to see how this matter works out. The Minister says that we are not making any


change, but a certain change has inevitably crept in. This body will have a good deal of financing power. As we all know, in the grading up of hospitals the standard of teaching institutions has been one of the cardinal points around which argument and discussion have gone on for years, as the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) will know, and particularly in regard to the grading up of local government institutions to the point of being teaching institutions. That has often been a very sore point in the past. Other outside bodies had great command of finance and could give great help to institutions of local authorities and to the great voluntary hospitals. These hospitals now derive their funds from central sources.
There is a certain danger of rigidity creeping in here, with respect to an institution anxious to reach the standard. Such an institution and its backers may believe it can reach the standard. The General Medical Council may think that the institution will not be able to reach that standard. In those circumstances the Council would not be able to approve of the proposed scheme, and a promising development may be stultified. We cannot foresee all those circumstances, and so we must watch how this matter works out.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) is very real. I do not think that the hiatus has entirely disappeared, despite the assurances on that point by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) whose knowledge of the subject we all recognise. The assurances are not borne out by the facts given or by the circumstances which might arise, as the hon. Member for Barking and myself know very well. There are many cases where development has gone on for a considerable time and where the enthusiastic advocates of such and such a hospital becoming a training school have often had very great difficulty in persuading the powers that be that the hospital was on the way to being all that it had already actually become, an institution fit to be recognised as a training school.
However, again the Minister gave assurances, and we take them in all good faith. The hon. Member for Blackley gave assurances that he does not think that the contingency feared by my hon.

Friend would arise. We are at the beginning of a developing process and we must see how these things work out. My hon. Friend has done great service in calling attention to this matter.

12 noon.

Mr. Hastings: I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary a specific case. Suppose that a regional hospital board decides to build a 200-bed hospital. In order to make it a complete hospital and to secure nurses as well, it decides to have a nurse-training school which must involve a certain amount of building. A lecture room, practical class rooms and so on, will be needed for the nurses, and desks, skeletons and other equipment will be required. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether the regional hospital board can apply for finances for this purpose.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Certainly it can.

Mr. Diamond: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out "Minister may specify," and to insert:
Council may specify and the Minister approve.
This Amendment follows the same general line of argument as has been pursued on other points earlier today. It is designed to get a clear distinction between the professional duty of determining what is right and proper for the training of nurses and the political duty of determining what money can be apportioned from the Exchequer to make that purpose possible. This Clause states that moneys can be, and are to be, set aside:
wholly or mainly for the purposes of, or in connection with, the training of nurses; and of such description as the Minister may specify for the purposes of this subsection;
I submit that while the Minister should give his approval, it is not for him to specify what type of equipment or activity is desirable for the purpose of training nurses. It is for the professional body to specify and for the Minister subsequently to approve.
It is always rather dangerous to give either real or hypothetical examples, but I should like to quote one example which has occurred in the past and which will


continue to occur in future. Let us take any hospital ward where there are student nurses. It may come to the knowledge of those responsible for the training of student nurses in that ward that they are not getting sufficient attention and guidance to enable them to learn their job. They may, therefore, request that an additional trained nurse should be introduced into the ward specifically to look after that matter. It may be argued that that is not the real reason. It may be said that there are inadequate nurses in that ward to look after the patients and that the real reason for the request for an additional nurse is not to improve the training of students but to improve the standard of the nursing of the patients.
As I understand the matter, if a difficult point like that arises—and it will, and does, come up every day—it will be the Minister or his Department who will decide what is to be done, because only a certain amount of funds will be available and the Minister is bound to be influenced by the amount of funds which are available in pocket A or in pocket B. It is my firm conviction that a point of that sort should be decided by the professional body and not by the Departmental authority.
I hope that I have explained this Amendment clearly and that it is one which the Government will accept. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that during the Committee stage the Minister of Health intervened to say:
We are endeavouring to see to it that the academic side of medicine is kept entirely separate, and that the provision of apparatus on the secular side is the obligation of the Minister of Health."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1689.]
He made clear the need for a distinction between the professional and the academic and financial side. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment, which would make the position more clear than it is at present.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that there must be a misunderstanding about the main point of this Clause which is designed to ensure that the general administrative expenditure of a hospital shall be divided into two sections—nursetraining expenditure and other expendi-

ture which can be more properly left to the hospital administrative side and which will continue to be dealt with through the channels established by the National Health Service. The decision how that general expenditure shall be divided is surely not the proper responsibility of the General Nursing Council. I am sure that it is not one which that Council would wish to accept.
What we visualised was that my right hon. Friend would issue for general guidance the specification of the categories of expenditure which he would regard as coming within this provision. In many cases it is obvious that there are classes of expenditure which are connected partly with nurse-training and partly with hospital administration. If we are to ensure that this scheme works smoothly, as we wish it to do, we do not want to be involved in a great deal of argument about, this particularisation of the different categories of expenditure. Therefore, the duty is laid upon the Minister to specify the categories.
For example, he would not specify a new training school, but he would specify in general that that was one of the categories of expenditure that he would consider even though that type of expenditure might also involve other hospital administration work. It might be used for many other purposes. It might be decided finally that the other purposes for which it was used took it out of category A as being wholly or mainly for the purposes of training.
I suggest that this Amendment would give to the general Nursing Council a responsibility for splitting up general expenditure which cannot be the responsibility of the Council and must be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. The criterion which he will use in judging whether a certain form of expenditure should fall into nurse-training or should continue to be dealt with through the ordinary hospital accounts under the National Health Service must be decided partly by administrative convenience in order to avoid any difficulties which might otherwise arise. For example, we would suggest that the general payment for nurses in training should probably not fall upon this particular training part of the expenditure; otherwise, it would completely overwhelm the smaller items which we are anxious should not be sub-


merged and destroyed. That is the sort of issue which is bound to arise, and for that reason it is a matter which must be left to my right hon. Friend.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I appreciate that there is a good deal in what the Parliamentary Secretary has said in regard to the responsibility for dividing up these expenditures, but I am not altogether certain that it will be as easy as he contemplates for the Minister to deal with this matter in the way that is proposed. I should have thought that a great deal of the expenditure might be regarded either as wholly for the administrative purposes of the hospital or wholly for training, according to the purposes for which the expenditure is incurred.
I do not see how, in advance, we can possibly give some general description of the expenditure which will cover not only the nature of the expenditure but the motive for which it is incurred. I do not see how that will be possible. I should have thought that in all cases of this kind it would at least be necessary for the Minister to have a good deal of consultation with the Council. As the Clause is now drafted, this appears to be the sole responsibility of the Minister, and I did not hear anything from the Parliamentary Secretary to suggest that, before he issues his general directive, as I think he is going to do, he will consult the Council.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On that point, I agree that my right hon. Friend would consult with the General Nursing Council, but the responsibility must, I am quite sure, rest with him.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not certain that that is the case, but it is largely a matter of words. If the Minister gives a plain undertaking that he will consult them, it is merely a question of initiative—whether it lies with the Minister or with the Council—and I am not disposed to quarrel with the proposition that the ultimate responsibility must be that of the Minister. In view of that undertaking, I think the House may now be satisfied that the position will be more satisfactory.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 22, leave out "standing," and insert "area."

In line 22, after "committee," insert "for the area."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 5.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS EXPENSES OF OTHER PERSONS IN RESPECT OF NURSE-TRAINING.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 29, leave out "A standing," and insert "The area"—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 6.—(EXPENSES OF STANDING NURSE-TRAINING COMMITTEES.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 35, leave out "a standing," and insert "an area."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 7.—(REFERENCE OF DISPUTES TO THE COUNCIL.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 38, leave out "a standing," and insert "the area."

In line 41, leave out "a standing," and insert "the area."

In line 44, leave out "standing," and insert "area."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 8.—(THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.)

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, to leave out "members of the Council," and to insert:
such number of persons, being members of the Council, as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under subsection (1) of section three of the Act of 1919 and such persons other than members of the Council (not exceeding two in number) as may be nominated by the Minister, after consultation with the Council, for appointment to the committee.
This Amendment is moved to meet the point raised by hon. Members opposite who were anxious that this finance committee should have a proper standing. It has already been made a statutory committee of the Council, and it was felt that there should be some power in the hands of the Minister, which also may be desired by the General Nursing Council, for the appointment of a strictly limited number of additional persons who might have special qualifications to sit on that committee.
We do not feel that it should be made obligatory that the appointments should be made. We think this is a matter which can far better be settled by mutual discussion between the General Nursing Council and the Minister, but we feel it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend had this power to appoint, because it may be valuable on both sides, and indeed, it may very well be desired by the General Nursing Council. At the same


time, we are anxious that this should not affect the standing of the General Nursing Council itself, and we have therefore tried to steer a middle course between the two difficulties.

Mr. Linstead: I welcome this Amendment, which substantially reproduces an Amendment submitted by me in the Committee stage. I recognise that in the Amendment now before us the Minister has been treading very delicately, but I also notice a rather unusual form. It is the Minister who nominates and the Council which appoints; it must be very rare in a statute to find it that way round. It is much more frequently the case that a body nominates and the Minister appoints. I notice the hesitation of the Minister about making the appointments, and the suggestion that it may not be necessary to make them. I hope they will be made, particularly in the early stages when the whole of this new financial machine is being put to the test.
The assistance of people from outside the Council with experience of financial matters might be valuable. I believe that this is a step in the right direction, which recognises that a Council constituted for this purpose is not necessarily the right body for the financial task now given to it; and that consideration alone makes it desirable that these appointments should be made, particularly in the early stages.

Mr. Diamond: I am very sorry indeed that my hon. Friend has moved this Amendment, because I am sure that it will have the effect which is not desired, of discouraging a number of very busy people who are to be asked to take on very large additions to their work but who are already in a position of some difficulty because of the weight of their responsibilities. I do not know why it is necessary to put down an Amendment to enable the Minister to supplement the abilities of the General Nursing Council so far as finance is concerned and in carrying out duties which the Council will be fully capable of executing.
If it is said that the Council is incapable of carrying out these extended functions, then I would say "Do not give them these functions." If it is not seriously doubted that they can do the job, then let them get on with it. Do not let us have an appointment made

from outside at a time when, if a decision is reached, it may not perhaps be in accordance with the views of a particular Minister at the particular time. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and that he has tried to tread extremely warily and delicately in this matter.
Of course, there arise occasions when a body of persons finds itself without the expert opinion which is needed for a particular purpose. That must happen to everyone in every walk of life. The obvious thing is then to consult an expert in that particular field. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not find it necessary to appoint to the General Nursing Council an architect, a statistician, a lawyer, a surveyor or members of other professions, of which, of course, I omit an obvious one. I am sure that he would not find it necessary to appoint all these individuals to this Council although, of course, it does happen that the Council is continually in need of that sort of professional advice.
Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will feel satisfied that where a particular matter requires such expert, detailed knowledge, the Council is capable of consulting the appropriate professional adviser in the ordinary way. This is a reserve power, and to have a reserve of power is in the nature of a threat.

Mr. Blenkinsop: indicated dissent.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head—and for the purposes of HANSARD, I should make it clear that the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head as meaning "No." I am sure that is the way in which this might be read. It is obviously an indication that this House does not feel that this body should carry out its new functions with its own members. If the fear is felt that this body cannot carry out the new functions, let us say that these functions should not be carried out by this body, and do not let us try to do these two things which cannot be reconciled.
I think this is bad in principle because of the discouragement and because of this veiled threat, but threat none the less. I think that it is also bad in practice because, of course, it will mean that, instead of having one finance committee to deal with the affairs of the Council,


we shall have two finance committees, because there exists at the moment a finance committee which finds its time taken up with the existing financial affairs of the Council. If two outside members are appointed, we shall require a separate committee to deal with this particular finance, and a separate finance committee to deal with the ordinary domestic finance of the Council.
In its most convenient form we should have the two committees following on one another, and at the time the second committee was called, the two members appointed under this Clause would retire and the remaining members would carry on. For that reason, and bearing in mind that one can never get a part which is greater than the whole, and that this is supposed to be a committee of the Council, the council itself should have the final decision, and will have the final decision. If it ever arises that on the votes of these two outside experts the finance committee's decision is different from what it would otherwise have been, that decision will, of course, only last until the Council meets, because the General Nursing Council will immediately reverse the decision of the finance committee.
In conclusion, I say that this is bad in principle and will be ineffective in practice. I sincerely ask my hon. Friend not only to give this matter further consideration but to say that, in view of the strong feeling on this side of the House so far as the Nursing Council is concerned, it is better that this slight threat and delicately worded Amendment should not be pressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) The term of office of the members of the finance committee shall be such as may be prescribed as aforesaid.

In line 10, leave out "standing," and insert "area."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 18.—(MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL, ETC., NOT TO INVOLVE PARLIAMENTARY DISQUALIFICATION.)

Amendments made: In page 10, line 31, leave out "a standing," and insert "an area."

In line 32, leave out "a standing," and insert an area."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 20.—(EXPENSES OF THE COUNCIL.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 13, leave out "standing" and insert "area."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 11, line 13, after "committees," insert:
(other than expenditure incurred by such committees in conducting examinations on behalf of the Council).
This is to make clear the meaning of the Clause, because if we had left the wording as it stands, it might have fallen to the Minister to defray any expenses incurred by the area nurse-training committee on behalf of the General Nursing Council in conducting examinations. It is quite clear that that is not the intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made: In page 11, line 31, at end, insert:
'area nurse-training committee' means a committee constituted by an order of the Minister under subsection (1) of section two of this Act;".

In page 12, leave out lines 26 to 28.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

First Schedule.—(THE GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND AND WALES.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 14, line 34, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the first members appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (b) to (d) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall hold office for a term of three years.
This is to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond), who suggested that there should be overlapping of the periods of office of the different members of the General Nursing Council. We have broadly adopted the principle which he laid down, and I think that the Amendment will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Diamond: I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for moving this Amendment.

Mr. Howard: I cannot resist asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether this Amendment is not introducing undue rigidity into the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(STANDING NURSETRAINING COMMITTEES.)

Amendments made: In page 15, line 16, leave out "A standing," and insert "The area."

In line 36, leave out "a standing," and insert "the area."

In page 16, line 15, leave out from "area," to "to," in line 16.

In line 17, leave out "committee," and insert "area nurse-training committee for that area."

In line 20, leave out from "area," to "on," in line 21, and insert:
to provide the area nurse-training committee for that area.

In line 25, leave out "a standing," and insert "an area."

In line 32, leave out "a standing," and insert "an area."

In line 34, leave out "a standing," and insert "an area."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to all Members on all sides of the House who have taken such a practical interest in this Measure. I think that we can fairly say that we have had completely dispassionate, non-party discussions and we have had the value of many constructive proposals from both sides of the House. I feel that the Bill leaves the House much better fitted to carry out its important functions.
I am sure I am speaking on behalf of the whole House in saying that we are most anxious to give every possible encouragement to the General Nursing Council in the new tasks that it undertakes, because we all recognise the importance of the work they have to do and the value to the whole of the Health Service that can come from the further improvements in nurse training which this Bill is designed to carry out. It is with that in mind that I move the Third Reading.

12.31 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On behalf of myself and my hon. Friends I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he has dealt with the points we

have raised. As he has said, this Bill has been completely non-contentious in any party sense, and hon. Members in all parts of the House have done their best to improve it. We welcome the general proposal embodied in the Bill that the training of nurses shall be separated from the administration of hospitals. We regard that as a right principle, and there is no difference of opinion anywhere about it.
Before we leave the Bill, however, I must say that we on this side of the House have apprehensions, some of which I believe are shared in other parts of the House, that difficulties may arise in its working. I do not wish to say anything harsh about the Government in this connection, but I fear that they have over-simplified the position. Perhaps they have in mind what has been done in the training of doctors. I think they are disposed to think that it will be possible to set up some kindred organisation which will work as easily and as quickly.
But the medical schools and the whole organisation connected with them have grown up only over a very long period of time. That organisation is highly complex, and it would be extremely difficult to introduce a similar organisation at all quickly for the training of nurses. The circumstances are different, and I do not believe that one can be copied from the other. Indeed, I do not think the Government intend that anything of that sort should happen. It will be necessary to work out some new system by trial and error, and I fear that there will be a number of trials and a number of errors before we get a satisfactory system.
I do not wish to go over any of the ground which has been discussed fairly fully, both in Committee and on the Report stage, but I must tell the Government that we have apprehensions that there will be difficulties, and that we believe it may well be necessary for them to come back to the House and ask it to pass an amending Bill at no very distant date. In the meantime, we wish all those responsible for the administration of this Bill the best of luck. We want to see it succeed as well as is possible. If it should be necessary for the Government to come back to the House with an amending Bill, we shall


recognise that this is a non-party Measure, and we hope that, whichever side of the House we may be sitting on at that time, we shall be equally united in improving the Bill.

12.34 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: This Bill makes one more useful and desirable contribution towards improving the status of nurses and the conditions under which they carry out their very responsible and arduous duties. As has been stressed, the crux of the Bill is the separation of training from staffing, which will perhaps make it less likely that student nurses will have to devote so much of their time, as they used to in days gone by, to polishing hospital floors to such an extent that walking across the ward became a danger to life and limb.
The arrangements set out in the Bill will be to the mutual advantage of both broad classifications of hospitals; namely, the teaching hospitals and the municipal hospitals, as they used to be called. Both kinds of hospital will eventually gain from the co-ordination that is likely to be brought about as a result of this Bill. In my constituency there are both kinds of hospital, and for that reason I welcome the assurance given at an earlier stage by the Parliamentary Secretary that the General Nursing Council was not likely to make such demands upon the teaching hospitals as would diminish the very high standards they have already attained.
Personally, I attach considerable importance to the enlarged functions and responsibilities of the General Nursing Council, and I hope that the nursing profession will take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Bill to alter and modify the previous set-up on the General Nursing Council. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) reminded us that of the 16 elected members on the General Nursing Council, no fewer than nine were matrons. Now that represents a very formidable panoply of matrons. I think "panoply" is probably the best collective noun to use in connection with our hospital matrons. Although in recent weeks it has become the fashion in this House to make election speeches, I hope the House will forgive me if I suggest that the nurses themselves—and no one

can dictate to them on the subject—now have an opportunity of remedying the unbalance—to use another fashionable word—which has hitherto existed on the General Nursing Council.
The Parliamentary Secretary, realising the situation, made it clear that he was both anxious and willing to see that the point of view of, for example, the ward sister was represented on the General Nursing Council. Knowing that that was unlikely in the formative stages during which the provisions of this Bill will be implemented, he has introduced at least that small element of rigidity into the set-up which will guarantee that at least one ward sister will sit on the General Nursing Council. In this connection, I hope that neither the regional boards nor the hospital governors will deter any ward sister, or any other member of what I might describe as the lower ranks of the nursing hierarchy, from endeavouring to get elected to the General Nursing Council.
The fact that in the Bill the Minister specifies that at least one place shall be allotted to a ward sister does not mean that a larger number cannot be elected by the free vote of their fellow members. If the nursing profession itself takes advantage of the opportunities now available to it under this Bill it will help to make the General Nursing Council more truly representative of the nursing profession as a whole than it has perhaps been in the past. The fact that the election of one ward sister has been prescribed does not of course mean that a stronger dose may not be desirable if the voters in the various regions choose to have a stronger representation of what I have described as the lower ranks of the nursing hierarchy.
This Bill will make a useful and valuable contribution towards the objects which hon. Members in all parts of the House have in mind and will, I am sure, work out to the satisfaction of all concerned. I do not think that the apprehensions which have been expressed by hon. Members who have already spoken today will prove justified. I am quite certain that this Bill will achieve the purposes it sets out to achieve and that the Government are to be congratulated upon having secured the passage of this useful Measure.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: I should like to say how grateful I am to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope I shall not be out of Order in saying how grateful I am not only to him but to his officials for the assistance which they have given and which has resulted in what we regard, with one minor exception, as a very useful Measure appearing on the Statute Book. This has indeed been a most helpful discussion and one which I snail always remember as being the most non-party discussion I have listened to in this House.
I think it will interest hon. Members opposite if I tell them that all their speeches on Second Reading and on the Committee stage have been read with the greatest interest and the greatest appreciation, and that the only doubt which has been expressed to me was expressed by one matron who, having read all the speeches, said, "There is only one thing you cannot tell and that is, from which side of the House they were speaking." That is a very pleasant compliment to those who have been concerned, as we are all concerned, with improving the training of nurses.
I should like to answer my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) who referred not to a covey or a brace but to a "panoply" of matrons. I thought he was going to use another noun of multitude and start talking about a "murmuration" of matrons. I am glad he did not permit himself to go that far. I want to ask him to bear in mind that every matron who sits upon the General Nursing Council has been a sister herself, and I am sure he will not ask that when a sister is appointed to the Nursing Council she should debar herself from being appointed at any later stage as a matron in her own or any other hospital.
I hope we realise that there is no likelihood of there being any unbalanced view in the General Nursing Council. I agree with hon. Members who suggest that we are embarking on a new experiment and I am sure we shall need every help from all sides in carrying it out in the most useful way. I hope that if ever we have to discuss this matter again it will be discussed in the same helpful and nonparty spirit which has characterised these debates.
Finally, I say that although the main purpose of this Bill was to provide machinery and not primarily to increase the numbers who enter this profession, I am sure that the appreciation for the nursing profession which has been shown on all sides of the House and the regard in which we all hold nurses cannot do other than encourage young women who have this great possibility within them of healing and helping the sick, to come forward and join in this most useful work.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, being expenses which under any Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 6 to 9.
I put down this Amendment to the Schedule to the Bill to delete the reference to Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, because I do not think it would be right for the House to continue these drastic provisions for another 12 months unless the Home Secretary is at any rate prepared to enlighten the Committee and the country as to the reasons why it is necessary to take these very wide powers and to


explain the principles which he applies in exercising them.
I sometimes doubt whether the country is fully aware of the sweeping powers which are retained by the Executive in connection with aliens. These powers were first granted to the Executive in 1914 as a result of the emergency which then existed. It was not intended at that time that they should become permanent. They were, in fact, retained under the 1919 Act, at the end of the 1914–18 war, as a temporary measure. Since then these quite sweeping powers have been continued from year to year, with the result that they have almost imperceptibly become a part of our constitutional machinery. Since they affect the liberty of the subject to such a degree and since there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding as to the basis on which they are exercised, I have put down this Amendment.
May I remind the Committee that in this Section, which we are being asked by this Bill to renew for another year, the Home Office not only have the power to prohibit the landing of any alien in this country but also the power to attach any conditions to such landing, to deport any alien without giving any reasons—and in practice no reasons are given—and in addition the power to make orders—and they have made orders—relating to the arrest, detention and search of aliens.
All those powers, which are quite absolute and arbitrary are exercised without any control; they are not only uncontrolled, but they are unregulated and not subject to any review, any challenge or any appeal to any court. In fact I do not think that anywhere on this side of the Iron Curtain is similar machinery given to the Executive for such complete and arbitrary powers with regard to aliens. Incidentally, there may be some occasions when practical difficulties arise in carrying them out. Notoriously, the Home Secretary looked like having a certain amount of trouble when it came to making a deportation order for Mr. Stanley, but that is by the way.
In practice, these powers are as sweeping as any powers could be. I am not complaining that there lifts been any abuse by the present Home Secretary of the method by which they are exercised. I believe the Home Office takes a great deal of trouble in considering every appli-

cation by an alien for permission to come to this country. I believe that these powers, under the present Administration, are always exercised humanely and sympathetically. But I still find that considerable doubt exists as to the principles which are applied by the Home Secretary both in granting permission to come to this country permanently and also when application is made for a temporary visa.
I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to enlighten the Committee on one or two specific questions which arise in connection with the general administration of this Act. May I, first of all, ask whether the principles which were laid down by the Home Secretary in the House on 13th November, 1945, with regard to the admission of distressed persons from Europe, still apply? Second, may I ask whether, in the conditions of today, any distinctions are drawn, and, if so, what, between applications from ex-enemy distressed persons and those who claim to be distressed persons coming from countries which are not ex-enemy countries? Third, will the Under-Secretary tell us what is the policy with regard to persons who obtain a visa to come here for a temporary visit and then, for one reason or another, apply to stay here permanently?
Are we to understand—and there is a certain amount of doubt about this—that persons who come here on a temporary visa can never obtain permission to stay here indefinitely? I can quite well understand that in the case of people who obtain a temporary visa by a false pretence or a deliberate deception in connection with their application, there would be no possible justification for extending the visa. The Home Office would have every possible support in resisting any attempt to abuse the privilege which had been granted.
But there are cases—I do not know how many, but it is a substantial number—in which a quite genuine and legitimate change of circumstances occurs after the person has obtained leave to come here on a temporary visa, say, for three or six months, and then, either because of a change in the conditions of the country from which he has come, or because some employment has been offered him here which was unexpected at the time he came here wishes to turn his temporary visa into a permanent visa.
I can understand that in all such cases the Home Office must be on their guard to prevent abuse. It may be that the right policy in all such cases would be to request the alien to return if possible and then submit a fresh application for consideration on its merits. But that may not always be possible, particularly if the alien comes from a country such as Hungary or Czechoslovakia or some other part of Central Europe.
I, therefore, hope that the Under-Secretary will enlighten a great many people who are interested in this matter, and will indicate broadly what are the principles which at present govern the admission of people who manage to come to this country without a visa in conditions in which it is impossible, or becomes impossible, for them to return. If my hon. Friend can give me satisfactory assurances on those points, I shall be very happy, with leave, to withdraw the Amendment.

12.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I am very glad to have an opportunity of replying to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. Fletcher), and I think I can give him an answer to all his questions. I want to be as brief as I can, but I think it would be useful if I fitted the answer to his questions into a slightly more general framework. My hon. Friend first of all raised the question of the wide scope of the Aliens Order and the powers granted under it. We discussed this matter at some length last year when dealing with the Act, and I hope the Committee will excuse me from going into great detail on the question of whether this should be in a permanent or temporary statute.
My hon. Friend was quite correct in describing the general nature of the powers under the order as very wide. I said on the last occasion that I thought there was some unreality in the proposition that there would be any greater protection for aliens in this country under a permanent statute than under the present procedure, though I cannot deny that it is somewhat anomalous that any temporary legislation of this kind should go on from year to year for so long as 30 years. It has been found difficult by all Governments which have had to handle this

matter to find Parliamentary time, and I cannot undertake that the law could be put on a permanent basis within this Parliament. It is, however, a matter which my right hon. Friend has had under consideration. I do not think anyone would deny that the powers for the control of aliens are necessary at present, as they have been necessary at all times ever since this order was first made.
May I now turn to some of my hon. Friend's question? First, he asked about visitors and then about permanent residents. Generally, it is no part of Government policy to keep out foreign visitors who wish to come here for business purposes or holidays. Indeed, we try to facilitate such visits as much as we can. The number of aliens who were allowed to land in the United Kingdom in 1948—the vast majority of whom were here for short periods—was 657,661. There were only just over 2,000 refusals of leave to land in the whole of that year. The number of people coming here in any year is considerable, and most of them go away within a few weeks. Unfortunately, we have been in difficulties over the policy regarding visits of people from the countries of Eastern Europe. For some time past nobody, or almost nobody, in any of those countries has been able to get travel facilities from his own Government to visit this country unless he was a Government-sponsored business man, coming here on business which was approved by his Government, or had to do with a Government trading concern.
In recent months, therefore, we have had really very few cases where people from these countries—usually referred to as countries behind the Iron Curtain—have actually applied to us for purely visitors' visas and possess the necessary facilities from their own Governments to come here and to return. We have had to be rather restrictive in allowing people who are nationals of these countries to come here, because, in general, it has been our experience either that they actually cannot go back because they are refused facilities by their Government to do so, or, if it is not so definite as that, at any rate they are, for natural reasons, exceedingly reluctant to go back. Many of these people had in fact the intention of never going back, and we have had to guard against granting a large number of visas ostensibly for visits which were not intended to be visits.
Supposing the circumstances of the alien change after he has quite genuinely asked for a visitor's visa, and he then wishes to stay here permanently, there is no absolute bar to his applying, and, in proper cases, being granted leave to stay on. That might arise if, after the time he had left his country, there was a violent political change, as in the case of Czechoslovakia last year, and although when he left his country he intended to go back he finds at a later stage that he cannot. That is one type of case where we have never compelled anybody to go back who satisfied us that he was a genuine refugee since his arrival as a visitor.
There is a second kind of circumstance which is common, and that is the intention with regard to employment. Normally, we do not expect people who come as visitors to be seeking employment, and, naturally, we do not encourage people who apply as visitors when in fact, their real purpose is to apply for employment. On the other hand, there are a number of cases of people coming as genuine visitors who, in fact, without having come specially for the purpose, get the offer of a job and then ask to be allowed to stay.
The standard which we adopt in such cases—we are naturally advised by the Ministry of Labour—is to and out whether the proposal for employment which is put up is one which would have measured up to the Ministry of Labour requirements if the application had been made from the foreign country before arrival for a Ministry of Labour permit. Generally speaking, if the offer which they put to us is of a kind which would enable them to get a permit had they applied from abroad, then I think there would be no difficulty in allowing them to convert their visit into a stay.
As regards permanent settlement, the House will appreciate that our policy has had to be conditioned since the end of the war by the fact that there were so many millions of people on the Continent of Europe who were homeless or living in distressed circumstances, or who were, at any rate, unemployed and saw no prospect of employment for a long time, and who would have wished to change the country in which they were living for this country. It is no exaggeration to say that that was the problem at the end

of the war, with the figures running into millions, and, although many of the people involved have become settled elsewhere, there is still a great pressure arising largely from the series of events in Eastern Europe which have been creating a new body of refugees.
We have throughout to take account of such questions as possible bad character or the bad health of people coming into this country, and the dangers of spreading disease, and so on, and also the risk of their becoming a charge on the community. Quite apart from that, there has, of course—in view of this potential flood of immigrants—been the need, generally speaking, to limit any large-scale immigration to people who can make some kind of contribution to our national economy as well as merely coming here to enjoy our hospitality, our social services, and to take their share of rationed goods, housing space, and all those other things which have been scarce.
I was asked whether the scheme of 13th November, 1945, is still in force. That is the scheme which we normally call the "Distressed Relatives Scheme," and it is the main exception to the general principle I have mentioned that immigration has to be limited to those who make a positive contribution to our economy. This scheme was intended to enable the hardest cases of persons who have relatives in this country and who were distressed in Europe to come here. That scheme is still in force, and, so far as it has been modified, they are only very small modifications, all in the nature of liberalisation, which do not very greatly extend any of the categories mentioned in that scheme. In answer to a Question in the House on 3rd June, 1948, my right hon. Friend said:
The policy which I have been developing has been to grant applications in respect of relatives outside the existing categories where there are special circumstances and considerations which differentiate their position from that of the thousands of people who would find life less difficult if they were admitted to the United Kingdom. In particular, sympathetic consideration is given to isolated individuals in distressed circumstances whose only relatives are in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 1223.]
The Committee will appreciate that our real difficulty lies in the fact that there are thousands of people who are in less good economic circumstances than they


once were in their own country. In that sense they are distressed, but of course there is nothing to single them out from hundreds of thousands of others. As we cannot accept them all, it has been very difficult to do other than stick, with a certain amount of firmness, to the categories laid down under the 1945 scheme. The figures under that scheme show that about 5,600 of these distressed relatives, admitted on purely compassionate grounds in addition to a very small number of homeless children who have been offered homes and their keep here, have come in during that period.
There was one other extension of that scheme in relation, particularly, to Czechs after the events of February and March, 1948, in Czechoslovakia. There, my right hon. Friend agreed to look sympathetically upon applications by Czechs who had escaped from Czechoslovakia, and who did not come within any of the categories entitling them to come here, but who had strong connections with this country, very often war-time service based on this country. Under that concession, something like 1,000 additional people of Czech nationality have been admitted. There is also the category of aliens of all nationalities who marry husbands or wives of British nationality. There are estimated to be about 6,000 under that category, again in addition to those who came under the 1945 scheme.
As regards the much larger numbers whom we have admitted on the ground that, in one way or another, they will make a contribution to our economy, there are, firstly, the European volunteer workers. Between October, 1946, and August, 1949, 83,000 workers and 3,500 dependants were admitted under that scheme. The flow is now somewhat slowing up, and in fact the recruitment under that particular scheme of male workers has actually stopped, but a limited number of women are still coming in.
The other big category of people who come here for work come under Ministry of Labour permits, and between May, 1946, and August, 1949, Ministry of Labour permits were issued in respect of 90,500 aliens. That category is not falling off. There are still large numbers

of people coming in under the Ministry of Labour scheme. Of course, they have to measure up to the standard required and, generally speaking, they can only come to take jobs for which it is not easy to find British subjects or aliens already resident here. In theory at least, and largely in practice, the persons who have these permits are only here temporarily. They may get extensions at the end of their first period of permit if there is still any suitable work, but they are essentially here in respect of the job they have agreed to take. It is expected that about 10 per cent. of the total will be likely in the long run to become permanently resident here.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the numbers now coming over in that last category?

Mr. Younger: It is estimated that for 1949 the figure will be about 35,000, which compares with the figure I gave earlier of 90,500 for the three years 1946–49. If that estimate proves to be correct, this year's figure will be slightly up. I would also remind the Committee that we have taken a large number of new aliens for permanent residence in this country from the Polish army and their dependants, amounting to 150,000. In addition, we have accepted some 15,000 former German prisoners of war and 8,000 former Ukrainian prisoners of war, all of whom have been accepted for settlement in this country.
In the last four years about 275,000 aliens have been admitted to the United Kingdom for permanent residence, of whom about 266,000—a high proportion of the total—may be reckoned as young immigrants or adults who are able to work and who come here for that purpose. Then there is the additional figure of 90,000 coming under the Ministry of Labour permits, most of whom are temporary. So far as one can judge, the flow for permanent settlement now and in the immediate future is likely to be 6,000 or 7,000 a year.
In giving these figures, I want to be careful to avoid any wrong impression. I am neither putting them forward as being large and as showing that we have made a remarkable contribution to the problem of dealing with refugees and other homeless people in Europe nor am


I trying to make out that the numbers are small and should be increased. The point I want to make is that it is necessary in the policy for aliens to have a balance between the conflicting considerations. On the one hand, we could not allow a vast inflow without a danger to the standard of living, and possibly—at any rate in the future, if not in past years—also to the employment of some sections of our own people. Therefore, we must have a check. On the other hand, we want to make a genuine contribution to the refugee problem in Europe, which still remains serious. Moreover we are not unaware that in the past immigration has been of great benefit to this country.
If the Committee will reflect on the figures I have given, I think hon. Members will regard them as reasonably substantial, as showing that the policy is not wholly restrictive and at the same time that there is no reason for alarm that we are permitting the country to be swamped by vast numbers of foreigners who, if they come into the country in a short time and in large numbers, are difficult to assimilate.
I have no doubt that many hon. Members have read the comments on immigration in the section of the Report of the Royal Commission on Population, where it is pointed out that to introduce very large numbers of foreigners within a short space of time raises real problems in a fully settled country which already has a fairly heavy population for its area. Experience in the last four years shows that there is not much wrong with the stale of immigration at present. There have been odd incidents, odd symptoms of friction, usually of a purely local character, but generally speaking I do not believe there is any serious ground for complaint on the score of too great a flow of immigration. It is important, as I think the Committee will agree, to keep in tune with public feeling on a matter of this kind. I am not claiming perfection, but I think that the figures I have given and the general categories I have described will satisfy the request of my hon. Friend that the principles upon which we are operating should be reasonably well known.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable and informative statement on an important

matter and, although I do not blame him, I cannot forbear from commenting that it is remarkable that such an important matter should have been raised on an occasion like this when normally we reckon to deal with a Bill of this kind in a routine manner. However, that statement has been made, and I hope I shall be in Order in following it briefly. Speaking entirely for myself, I do not quarrel with the immigration policy which the Government have pursued since they have been in office. If they have erred at all, I think they have erred sometimes in spoiling our foreign visitors.
I have two specific points on which I should appreciate a reply from the Under-Secretary. First, this country has a great and honourable tradition of granting asylum to foreigners fleeing from persecution in their own country. In describing the various categories of the Home Office for allowing immigration, the hon. Gentleman did not mention a specific category covering the granting of asylum to political refugees. On the other hand, he mentioned the specific case of the thousand refugees from Czechoslovakia who would come into such a category. Is there any definite policy about that, and if so, how many people are there in this country at the moment who would come into that category?
My next point deals with the rather delicate question of unemployment. I am not trying to introduce any party point here. I am trying to be realistic and to set at rest the fears beginning to arise in the minds of some of our own people as well as of some of the immigrants. Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have a policy for deciding what is to happen to the 90,000 people on temporary immigration passes if there should be substantial unemployment in this country? Also, what is to happen to the 260,000 people brought in for economic reasons on permanent passes?

1.20 p.m.

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I may deal with those two points. First, the question of asylum. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said, it has been, and still is, the tradition of this country to offer asylum to persons who are believed to be in danger of political persecution. It is still the practice, as


always, not to send back to countries where they would be in danger of persecution people in respect of whom my right hon. Friend is satisfied that they are political refugees. In the vast majority of cases which the hon. Member would regard as political refugees, the application for asylum does not, of course, come to us from the country in which the people are in danger of persecution. Whilst there are exceptions, we do not usually come into the picture at all until a person who may well have been in danger of political persecution is well beyond that danger and has reached some country such as, for example, France, or Western Germany.
We have not been able to accept the view that just because somebody has been a political refugee in his own country we must necessarily always agree to have him here—if, for instance, he is already in France and has no greater claim on us than he has on France. It is partly for those reasons that the 1945 scheme laid down a number of categories of those people who, by reason of relationships or residence in this country, were considered to have a special claim on us. It is for that reason that the exception to which I have referred was made recently in favour of Czechs who have, perhaps, no other connection with this country except their residence here during the war, but to whom nevertheless we wished to extend this special facility.
A number of people—largely stowaways—come here direct from countries where they claim to be in danger of persecution. We do not send them back if we are satisfied there is any real ground for that claim, but the House will appreciate that when somebody arrives without any documents whatever, and probably no one except himself is able to tell us how he came to be on the ship, we have to guard against being made fools of by large numbers of people who have not come here because they were persecuted or hold any political views, or had ever been politically active, but simply think that is the best story to tell. On the very few occasions when we have had any serious controversy about this, it has always arisen on the question of whether the evidence justified the conclusion that the people were in fact political refugees. On that, I can accurately

and fairly say that we take the very greatest care not, by being too strict on the evidence, to run the risk of sending people back to their fate. We have to treat these cases on their merits. We cannot blindly accept the statement of somebody who arrives without any means of checking his past history that he is in political trouble in his own country.
As regards unemployment, the hon. Member was careful to say he was not raising any party point. Obviously, this is a matter we must have in mind whether or not we believe that unemployment in any near future is likely. I will deal first with those people who hold Ministry of Labour permits. As I have explained, those permits are essentially temporary and their holders understand that. It is quite open to the authorities at the expiration of the permit to ask such people to go back to their own country. What would be the policy in any given circumstances, however, it would be wrong for me to try to say. The situation is a purely hypothetical one.
As regards those accepted for permanent residence, I think that by definition they are accepted for permanent residence. Very largely, however, these people have been admitted into undermanned industries, and it is unlikely that the number of them or the type of work they are now doing is such as would make a very serious problem. Once a person has been admitted for permanent residence, he would be unaffected by the kind of situation envisaged by the hon. Member for Huntingdon.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for the answer he has given. He has not only dealt with the specific points which I raised, but has also covered a considerably wider field and has given the Committee a great deal of information, which, I am sure, will be found very valuable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should be grateful if we could have some indication of how long the Minister now thinks it will be necessary to retain the two Acts detailed in Part II of the Schedule. They were originally


brought forward by Ministers as temporary Acts to deal with a temporary situation, and the re-appearance of the Schedules year after year is a tribute to the truth of the French proverb that, "Nothing lasts like the temporary." Both these Acts were introduced to deal with the temporary situation which, it was thought, arose out of the shortage of houses. I should like to ask the Minister what bearing there is on the prolongation of these Acts by the recent announcements by the Chancellor, because the figure of 175,000 recently given is actually below the 1931 figure of 212,000 and the 1932 figure of 219,000. In those circumstances it is clear—

The Chairman: I do not follow those figures, nor the reason why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman brings them within the purview of the Schedule.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Only that if the rate of housing is much below what the Minister thought the rate would be when the temporary Act was introduced, it is clear that the temporary Act is turning into a permanent Act and, therefore, should be taken out of the Schedule and re-introduced, say, next year, in the form of permanent legislation. It is that general argument which I was bringing before the Minister.

The Chairman: I cannot conceive how an alteration of this kind can affect the Schedule. We are discussing the Schedule as a whole, and the only matters within Part II touch upon The Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, and of The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. I cannot see how the question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised can conceivably come within those Acts or be related to them in any way for our purpose today, which is to decide whether or not these particular Acts, both of which are included in the Schedule, should be continued in existence for a further year.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It was only on the point that frequently in the discussion of whether Acts should be included in the Schedule to the Bill or not, the House or Committee have raised the question whether they were not appearing too frequently in the Schedule and whether they should not now be transferred to some more permanent form of legislation.
The argument I was advancing was merely that, owing to recent developments, it appeared as though those Acts would form almost a permanent feature on the Statute Book and, therefore, that the Government should consider whether they could make any pronouncement as to how long they were likely to remain temporary or whether, in fact, they were not now turning into permanent Acts and should re-appear in a more permanent form. On that basis I was pointing out that the great reduction recently announced by the Chancellor compared with even the figures of 1931–32, when there were 2 million fewer people in the country, indicated that pressure which those Acts reflect on the housing accommodation of the country is likely to persist very much longer than the Minister expected when he brought this legislation forward or when these two Acts were first included in the Schedule of expiring laws to be continued year after year. That is the question which I wish to ask the Minister, and perhaps he will be able to give us an explanation.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I understand, Major Milner, that you are not selecting the Amendment standing in my name, and I should be very grateful if you could let me know the grounds on which it is not being called.

The Chairman: I have ruled the hon. Member's Amendment out of Order, on the ground that he was thereby proposing to amend the terms of one of the Acts included in the Bill. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was last year fortunate in prevailing upon the Chair to permit him to move a similar Amendment, because his intention was not then clear, but I am afraid that on this occasion I have bad to rule his Amendment out of Order on the grounds I have stated.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Further to that point of Order, Major Milner. I think the Committee are rightly a little puzzled to know how an Amendment can be in Order in 1948 and out of Order in 1949.

The Chairman: Times do change. I have looked at the Debate a year ago. The hon. Gentleman made his intention clear in his speech on that occasion by using these words:


Its object"—
that of the Amendment—
is to vary the provisions of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th Nov. 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1165.]
Thereby he made clear what was not previously clear. And having done so, his proposal was clearly out of order and the point cannot be proceeded with now.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I would certainly not depart in any way from your Ruling, Major Milner, but I am under a slight disadvantage at the moment because having, prior to putting down the Amendment, consulted those whom we are entitled to consult and verified the authorities, I have come prepared to argue the matter as I thought that the Amendment would be in Order, particularly having regard to the fact that it was accepted last year. I understood that the basis of the authority for an Amendment to this Bill was that the Amendment required only to delete a certain Act or subject matter contained in the Bill. If that is so, I find it very difficult to know how such an Amendment can fail to alter the provisions of the Bill. Consequently, if the provisions of the Bill can be altered, I should be grateful for your further guidance as to how an Amendment can be submitted to the Bill which will be in Order.

The Chairman: As I have indicated, the ground of my Ruling is that the hon. Member's Amendment is beyond the scope of the Bill because it seeks to vary or amend the provisions of an Act which the Bill before us seeks to continue. I cannot say more than that.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has invited me to make a statement on general housing policy which, I fear, would be quite out of Order on this occasion. He has also asked me whether I can give any indication of the period of time the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, may be expected to continue. The Ridley Committee on Rent Control suggested in 1945 that, owing to the urgency of the general problem and the shortages likely to arise, there would have to be some form of rent control for a period of about 10 years from that date.
As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will fully recognise, I am sure that this is a matter connected with rent control generally which at some suitable time must be reviewed, and it is because this Measure falls within the general scope of the rent control problem generally that we feel that it should be regarded as a temporary and not as a permanent Measure. It will have to come up for review whenever it is possible to undertake the general review of rent control that may be necessary at a later date. There is no doubt about the continuing need for this Measure, as is instanced by the decisions which are being taken by the tribunals. I have figures here to show that of the 9,700 cases decided in the 12 months ending 31st August this year—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly go into those figures. The question is, "That this be the Schedule"—

Mr. David Renton: I was hoping, Mr. Bowles, to have an opportunity of putting a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I am, of course, in your hands. It is a very short question.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not collected the voices. The hon. Gentleman may do so if he wishes.

Mr. Renton: I would invite the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this. I suggest that he is paying a quite undeserved compliment to the National Government in perpetuating Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. There is a growing body of feeling in the country that street lighting and road safety have not really quite so much to do with each other as was assumed in that Section—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman heard the Chairman rule a discussion of this kind out of Order. He cannot therefore persist in his question.

Mr. Renton: With great respect, Mr. Bowles, I was not trying to flout the authority of the Chair but was making a few introductory remarks to my question, which comes in my next sentence. It is: Are the Government going to take any steps at some time in the near future to vary this law or are we to have a similar provision in next year's Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): If it is in Order for me to answer that question, Mr. Bowles, may I say that this is a convenient way of continuing the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit, and it will be continued in this way until such time as legislation can be introduced on road traffic matters. I cannot anticipate when that will arise. There are others in a better position than I am to answer that. At the moment it is our intention to rely on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to continue the 30-milean-hour speed limit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Orders of the Day — SOUTH SCHLESWIG

1.38 p.m.

Professor Savory: On 9th April, 1940, at 4 o'clock in the morning, the German Ambassador at Copenhagen woke up the Foreign Secretary and told him that the Germans had evidence that British troops and British Air Forces were about to occupy bases in Denmark and therefore it had been necessary for the Germans to occupy the country. He pointed to the sky above which was black with the German bombers and informed him that resistance was altogether hopeless. His Excellency the Foreign Minister replied that they had no evidence whatsoever of any invasion or any intention on the part of the British authorities to occupy any bases in Denmark.
The Danish troops had already started an heroic resistance in Jutland, and on the square in front of the Royal Palace the Life Guards had begun a very bold attack. There is no doubt that, led by their gallant commander-in-chief, they would have fought to the last man in exactly the same way as the Swiss Guard on 10th August, 1792, were prepared to defend the Palace of the Tuileries, but the King was determined to put an end to this useless bloodshed. The case was absolutely hopeless, and in spite of the wishes of the commander-in-chief he gave

an order to the Life Guards to give up the hopeless struggle.
The Danish Government drew up a formal protest in which they repudiated the so-called information that the country was about to be occupied by British troops and that the Germans had come in to defend it. The German troops, who everywhere advanced into Jutland and occupied the islands, told the inhabitants—and Danes have informed me that the German soldiers genuinely believed it—"We have come to protect you against the British." The soldiers had been told this by their officers and with usual German gullibility they took it all in.
The Danes had a non-aggression pact with the Germans which had been signed just before war broke out, and on 1st September, 1939, the Danish Government had issued a proclamation of neutrality which they were absolutely determined to preserve. For five years the Danish people carried on an heroic resistance. They were largely aided by British parachutists who landed with munitions of all kinds, and the sabotage of German factories reached large dimensions.
The German military authorities behaved in Denmark, and I think this should be known in this country, in exactly the same way as did the German troops in France. The Gestapo carried out murders of individual Danish citizens who were thought to be opposed to the German occupation, and when they had seized representatives, as they thought, of the Resistance Movement they tortured them in exactly the same way as the French had been tortured. I have myself this Summer spoken to four very distinguished Danish gentlemen who I must say very reluctantly described to me, when I insisted, the appalling and unmentionable tortures to which they were subjected by the Germans.
The consequence was that when the news was announced through the B.B.C. on 5th May, 1945, that the Germans had capitulated in Holland, in North-East Germany and in Denmark, the rejoicing throughout the country was unbounded. The leaders of the Resistance Movement came out of their hiding and in uniforms which had been put on one side advanced in lorries to occupy all strategic points. A Coalition Government was appointed consisting not merely of politicians but


also of leaders of the Resistance Movement.
The German occupation cost Denmark, on the very lowest estimate reckoned in pounds sterling, £550 million—a staggering sum for such a small country consisting of not more than four million inhabitants. It would have been perfectly possible and would have been fully justifiable had Denmark, having suffered this unprovoked attack, advanced with her troops and occupied the whole of Schleswig down to the ancient border of the Eider. They would have only been doing what the French did when in that glorious year of 1918 their troops advanced and re-occupied Alsace and Lorraine. Let it be remembered that this Prussian occupation of Schleswig had lasted only six more years than the Prussian occupation of Alsace and Lorraine. I am perfectly certain that had the Danes taken that action, as they might most properly have done, it would have been welcomed by all public opinion in this country, throughout the Continent of Europe and in the United States of America.
The Germans are always thought to have made the most skilful and most wonderful plans, to have thought out everything beforehand, but there was one error in their calculations. They forgot to carry away with them the instruments of torture which they had used in the Danish camps. Large numbers of these are there and are to be seen today in the museum at Sonderborg. Looking at them, I could only recall the medieval instruments of torture which I had seen in the Castle of Nuremberg. There was just this difference: the Germans had added further refinements to the tortures employed during the Middle Ages.
The Germans behaved in Denmark in a way no less cruel and barbarous than the way they behaved in France or in any country which they had invaded. But the Danes did not re-occupy their ancient territory—and I must once again emphasise that this territory of Schleswig is purely and wholly Danish; the Danish occupation goes back to A.D. 811. At Rendsburg on the frontier on the Eider was an ancient stone, a photograph of which I have here. When the country was occupied by the Prussians, this ancient stone was taken down from the gate of Rendsburg on the frontier on

the Eider and placed where it now is, in the arsenal in Copenhagen. It bears the inscription, Eidora Romani terminus imperii, or translated "The Eider is the boundary of the Holy Roman Empire," or "The Eider is the boundary of Germany." One can only look upon that stone with reverence and I am thankful it has been preserved today in the arsenal at Copenhagen.
Let us never forget that it was in 1864 that Bismarck seized upon a pretext for the invasion of the country. Lord Palmerston had certainly allowed it to be understood that the British Government would intervene because he held that we were still bound by the Treaty of 1720 made between George I and the King of Denmark, of which the original is still in the Foreign Office. Under this famous Treaty Great Britain guaranteed that Schleswig should always be a part of Denmark. Lord Palmerston unfortunately failed in his efforts to induce Napoleon III to intervene. Napoleon III was at that time seriously preoccupied with the disastrous expedition to Mexico. He refused, a fatal blunder on his part, and Bismarck called the bluff of Palmerston. Bismarck knew that England would not fight alone. But that bluff of Palmerston was attacked in the House of Commons by Disraeli in a famous speech which is well worth reading in HANSARD. The result was that Lord Palmerston, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, won a vote of confidence by only 18 votes, and only then because he introduced statements showing the prosperity of Great Britain under his regime which had nothing whatever to do with the question under discussion.
The Danes cannot forget that unfortunate episode. Lord Palmerston, who saw well into the future, stated in the House of Commons that the pretext of Bismarck that he was coming to support the claim to the Danish throne of the Prince of Augustenburg was false. Palmerston said that Bismarck was aiming to get the harbour of Kiel. Now we have the published memoirs of Bismarck. There we find it avowed that the Prince of Augustenburg was only a pretext and that Bismarck's real object was to seize the great port of Kiel and lay the foundation of the German Navy. So soon as he had accomplished his object he threw over the Prince, saying that he found the Prince's claim was not justified and that


the real sovereign was Christian, who, in accordance with the Treaty of London, 1852, had been made King of Denmark.
One thing that Lord Palmerston had fought for, before he died in 1865 within two days of the age of 81, was taken up by Napoleon III, who insisted that in the Treaty of Prague the famous Fifth Article should be inserted, in accordance with which a plebiscite should be held in North Schleswig. The people were to be asked to decide whether they would be reunited once more to the mother country of Denmark. That Clause was never carried out. This was the famous broken treaty which rankles so bitterly in the minds of the Danish people today. What was the policy of Prussia? It was, first of all, to bring in German colonists and to compel the Danes to evacuate their lands. Secondly, and above all, it was to suppress the use of the Danish language. The Danish schools were abolished. Danish could not be spoken either in church or in school, or at any public lecture. A lady was singing in her own private drawing room a Danish song. The weather was very warm, so she opened the window, and this beautiful song was heard in the street. A policeman immediately came in and said: "This is no longer a private singing. This is a public demonstration," and he arrested her and carried her off to the police station for having broken the law by singing Danish in public. That was the oppression to which these noble people of Schleswig were subjected.
I was taken in Copenhagen to see a picture by a well-known artist, Madame Mehru. I have a photograph of it here. It represents a mother taking out of a chest a Danish flag which had been hidden carefully away there. It is the middle of the night, and she has come to show it to her son, a Dane who had been conscripted into the Prussian Army and forced, against his will, to fight for Prussia. The mother is represented as saying to this boy: "Remember that this Dannebrog, this Danish flag, and you, are one and the same thing. Never forget, even though you are fighting under the Prussian flag, that you are born a Dane and will ever remain a Dane, devoted to your country and to the Danish language." I wish that a public subscription could be raised to purchase this beautiful picture and present it to the

people of South Schleswig and to the beautiful Duborg School at Flensborg.
This state of affairs has continued right up into the 20th century. After the war of 1914–18, the Allies recognised that it could not continue and so a plebiscite was held. Schleswig was divided into three zones. In the Northern zone the vote showed a majority of 75 per cent. in favour of Denmark. Consequently, Northern Schleswig was restored to the mother country. Unfortunately, in the middle zone, owing to intimidation and immense pressure by the Germans and the threat that if the country were to vote Danish the shipyards and the factories would be closed down and the owners would migrate to Germany, the vote in that zone went against Denmark.
Most unfortunately of all, by a last-minute decision of the Big Four, the vote in the third zone was suppressed altogether. Had there been a vote in the third zone, the German officials would undoubtedly have been removed and the pressure on the second zone would have ceased to exist. I am sure, and I have been convinced by crossing the country from end to end and from East to West and right away to the Frisian Islands and talking to the people, that if today a vote were taken, at least in the second zone, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of Denmark.
The Danes have shown exemplary moderation. Instead of advancing, as I have suggested they might, to occupy the whole country, they have made a very moderate request. I have here words which I have taken from the Danish White Book and which consist of a communication from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the British Ambassador, dated 19th October, 1946. This is the very modest Danish demand to the British authorities who were in occupation of the country and were responsible to a very large extent:
In continuation of the recommendations which have been made in the past by the Danish Government on the subject of an administrative separation of Slesvig from Holstein, the Danish Government desire to emphasise that in an administratively unified Slesvig-Holstein South Slesvig, as the smaller part, will find itself in a weak condition as compared with the greater Holstein. Only in a South Slesvig which forms an independent administrative unit without German organs common to Holstein and South Slesvig, and without any status of subordination to German authorities in Holstein,


will the Danish-minded population have a prospect of making themselves felt in political representation and so be able to safeguard their existence themselves. In this matter the Danish Government would refer to their Memoranda of December 15th, 1945, January 21st, 1946, and to the verbal representations which have been made both to the British Minister at Copenhagen and through the Danish Minister in London to the British Foreign Office.
For reasons which the Under-Secretary will no doubt explain to the House, this very modest request of the Danish Government was not accepted. They have adopted an entirely different policy. Their idea has been to place Schleswig under the German administration in Holstein and form a united Land, a united region, called Schleswig-Holstein, ignoring the fact that these two countries have in all history been entirely separate except during the 80 years of Prussian administration when the two countries were formed by Prussia into a province of Prussia called Schleswig-Holstein.
This is contrary to the entire sentiment of the Danish people. I pay grateful acknowledgment to the efforts made by the British authorities, by the Regional Commissioner, to bring about an agreement called the Kiel Declaration in accordance with which it should be possible to grant certain rights to the Danish population. In Kiel I was handed a German copy of the text, but I had to apply to the Foreign Office for the English text and I am grateful to the Minister for having supplied me with this text from which I can quote to this House if necessary.
On paper this Kiel agreement is admirable. I discussed it with the Danish-minded population, and I think that we should express our gratitude to Mr. Asbury, the Regional Commissioner, and to Mr. De Haviland, his assistant, for their efforts in this respect. However, I am sorry to say of this Kiel agreement, which gives great advantages to the Danish population and promises them the use of their language and various other most important privileges, that even though the ink on it is scarcely dry, it is not being carried out. The Kiel agreement was approved by the Diet or the Landtag on 26th September of this year, but during the last fortnight, according to the information and the complaints which I have received and which I feel

it my duty to bring before this House, the Councils of Kreis Flensburg and Kreis Husum, having Christian Democratic Union majorities, have resolved not to accept the Kiel agreement. The same resolution has been made by the Christian Democratic Union Party of the county council of Eiderstedt and Stapelholm.
In Eiderstedt the council of the Christian Democratic Union held a meeting attended by members of the Kreistag as well as by the German Landrat. This meeting ended with the passing of protests against the Kiel agreement in which it is recommended to vote only for such candidates as declare that the Kiel agreement should be null and void. That is to say, at the next county elections this party will only support candidates who declare the Kiel agreement to be null and void. I am sorry to weary the House with these details which are taken at random from the huge mass of information which I have received.
The same line is taken by the county council of Husum refusing the Danish group a proportionate representation on the most important sub-committees of the county council, in spite of the wording of the Kiel agreement. The Kiel agreement lays down that there shall be representation in committees such as we have in this House, where Mr. Speaker sees that all parties are proportionately represented. That was stated clearly in the Kiel agreement. But what has taken place? This county council refuses the Danish-minded population proportionate representation in these most important committees of the county council in spite of the wording of the agreement.
The local council of Sonder Brarup in the county of Schleswig has refused to allow the Danish Youth and Sports Association to use the public sports grounds. It restricts the public sports grounds, which are maintained by county council rates, to the German Sports Associations and refuses to allow the Danish children, because they attend the Danish school, to make use of them. In Friedrichs-Stadt the children from the Danish school are not admitted to the public athletic hall though the parents of the Danish children have to pay their share for the maintenance of the hall. This, again, is clearly against the exact terms of the Kiel agreement.
I venture to say that if this line is followed all over South Schleswig, the Kiel agreement will not be enforced anywhere in the country except perhaps in the town of Flensburg. This proves, as the Danish Government have suggested in the memoranda which I read, that the only real security for freedom in South Schleswig can be obtained by separating South Schleswig from Holstein and giving the South Schleswig population a decisive vote in their own councils. I have said it before in this House and hon. Members laughed at me, but the analogy is perfectly true and exact. One can no more govern Schleswig from German Kid than one could govern Ulster from Dublin.
This very disagreeable situation is largely aggravated by the overcrowding of the South Schleswig area by the enormous influx of refugees. The Danish Minister in London wrote to the British Foreign Secretary as far back as 27th September, 1945—and again I take this from the Danish White Book—that:
The overcrowding of the South Slesvig area with refugees who generally are imbued with an extreme German national sentiment will, if it becomes of a lasting character, eliminate the special characteristics of the South Slesvig population. It will also reduce to insignificance and jeopardise the continued existence of the Danish-minded element of the population in South Slesvig which, ever since the forced cession of that country to Germany in 1864—in spite of lasting suppression—have fought to preserve its Danishness. From simply humanitarian motives, and from the point of view of the sympathy that all Danes must feel for this minority, it is to be desired that a possibility be vouchsafed to the Danish element for a safe national and cultural development of their own way of life.
I abbreviate this despatch, but would make this further quotation:
I venture on behalf of my Government earnestly to submit that South Slesvig should to the widest possible extent be spared the influx of more refugees. Likewise, it is particularly desired that those who have already been taken to this area should not be placed in such a position as to gain an opportunity to assimilate themselves into the population, and that they should have no opportunity of gaining influence over the administration of the district or upon that of the separate municipalities, be it by means of the franchise or eligibility for the municipal or county councils or in any other way.
On Tuesday, as I was informed by telegram from Copenhagen—I put a Question in this House and got no reply—the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs received the Norwegian Ambas-

sador, the Swedish Ambassador, and Icelandic Minister, who represented to him that the danger of the enormous increase in these refugees was a danger not merely to Denmark, and threatening not merely the frontier of Denmark, but the frontiers of the whole of Scandinavia. The Governments of those countries, in their Note to the Foreign Secretary, which has not been published in this country, though I received a Flensburg newspaper this morning and found it summarised there, deem it urgent that South Schleswig, should be relieved of an intolerable burden, and they maintained that the refugees in South Schleswig constituted a danger, not only for the southern frontier of Denmark, but for the southern frontiers of Scandinavia.
What is the extent of this influx of refugees? I have here a very important plan which I should like to hand over to the Under-Secretary of State later. It shows what is the percentage in the various Laender in West Germany and it has been very carefully prepared. From it, I find that whereas in Schleswig-Holstein the percentage of refugees as compared with the native population is 81, in Nieder Sachsen it is only 53 per cent., in Bavaria 30 per cent. and in Nord-Rhein-Westfalen 10 per cent., and in Bremen, which is in the American zone, it is only 6 per cent. Very well, then, the people are surely entitled to complain of the excessive number of refugees in their country, as compared with the rest of the British and American zones.
The Danish Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking as lately as 18th October in the Lower House of the Danish Parliament, said this:
The number of refugees in Western Germany is 8 million, and of these, 1,172,000 are in Schleswig-Holstein, and, in South Schleswig alone, 275,000.
I am quoting the Danish Foreign Minister, who ought to know the facts.
No other part of Western Germany has proportionately so many refugees as Schleswig-Holstein, and the population has increased since 1939 by 70 per cent., whereas the average increase in the British and American zones is only 22 per cent. In every room in every house in Schleswig-Holstein there is an average of 2.33 persons, whereas the average in the British and American zones is only 1.94. Between April and June of this year 17,356 fresh refugees have moved into Schleswig-Holstein.


According to the "Heimat Zeitung," of the 27th October, a German language newspaper which is published in Flensburg, whole families are crossing every night into South Schleswig over the heath where they hide during the day. A member of the county council said in Flensburg that the influx of new refugees is so great that the number of refugees is far greater than it was last year. He added:
We are no longer in a position to receive refugees in a way worthy of humanity. We are powerless as regards these conditions so long as this stream of refugees continues.
If I may, I would like to quote from the despatch of the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs on 19th October, 1946, in which he used these words:
An overpopulated South Slesvig cannot but cause an undesirable and dangerous state of tension at the frontier. It is a vital Danish interest to seek to avoid such a development. The future security of Denmark will essentially depend upon a cessation of the refugee pressure in the frontier areas.
I asked to be shown the homes of the refugees, and I visited them both in Flensburg and on one of the islands, and this is what I saw. Tumble-down houses, which the municipality of Flensburg would like to have pulled down long ago, since they go back about 300 years. I climbed staircase after staircase into these wretched rooms, in which the appalling overcrowding is something indescribable. I can understand why there is no gas and no electricity, but is it not deplorable that there should be no water, which has to be carried in pails from a public well up these endless stairs?
Again, I visited the refugee camp in Flensburg, which is on a beautiful site lying along that glorious and exquisitely lovely gulf of Flensburg. I must say that I have the greatest sympathy for these people. I spoke to many of them, and I remember asking one woman where she came from. She told me that she had come from Pomerania, and, when I asked her why she had left Pomerania, she told me this:
In the middle of the night, the Russians arrived at my house. I had a very nice home, with 100 acres of land. I had it well stocked, with many cattle, pigs and chickens, and everything you could wish for. The Russians came in the middle of the night and without any warning; they turned me out of my house, and refused to allow me

to take any of my possessions with me. I have drifted along from camp to camp, and at last I arrived in Flensburg.
I am certain that that woman was telling me the truth, and, although I am not a man of a very sensitive disposition, when I heard that story I could not prevent the tears from coming into my eyes. That is the state of affairs in South Schleswig today.
However much we may sympathise with these German refugees, what are the conditions which this influx has brought about? They have been given the vote. What is the result? The Danish municipalities which have always had a Danish majority have now been completely out-voted and a German majority has been elected in their place. Germans have never before in their whole existence had anything to do with Schleswig. The Germans have poured in from East Prussia and these Germans—the most Nazi of all Germans—have been given the vote and have out-voted the native population.
I drove over to Schleswig specially to investigate the circumstances on the spot, and there I interviewed a gentleman—Herman Klausen—who not only represents the town of Schleswig in the Diet but is also the national representative in the Federal Parliament at Bonn. He had been for many years mayor of Schleswig. A more fair-minded and just administrator could not possibly be imagined. He spoke with extraordinary fairness and moderation. What did he tell me? He said that Schleswig is purely Danish. Every house is Danish, all the surrounding farms are Danish and the street names are Danish. The Danish municipality had been ousted, and he was dismissed from his office of mayor—and the mayor is always a prominent official in Germany. Why? On account of the fact that these German refugees had been given the vote provided they had been three months in the country, the Danish majority which was 80 per cent., has now become a minority of 25 per cent. and the municipality has passed under German control, with the result that every effort has been made to import German officials and to get rid of the native Danish officials—and this in spite of the recently signed Kiel agreement.
This town of Schleswig is typical of the rest of the country and I am informed


that at the present moment the only two municipalities which still have a Danish majority are Flensburg and Riesum. It is easy to understand that the local population say that they can no longer be governed from Kiel. Kiel sends word to Flensburg: "You have to receive these refugees." The mayor says, "We have no room for them." They are, however, obliged to obey the order received from Kiel. These Danish-minded people are convinced that, given local control, they could solve this problem of refugees as the Danish Government did themselves.
In Denmark, 200,000 refugees poured in from Germany and lived in Denmark, saying that they were the guests of the King of Denmark. They went into the shops and seized everything on which they could lay their hands—these uninvited guests of the King of Denmark. The Danes have solved that problem. They have got out of Denmark the overwhelming majority of these refugees and the Danish-minded population in Schleswig assured me that, given local administration they would solve this problem. But they have a suspicion—I will not say whether it is well-founded or not because I do not wish to express an opinion, but it is the unanimous belief of the people of Schleswig that the Kiel Government are not as anxious as they should be to get rid of these German refugees. They rather like the idea—so they say—of this German population outvoting the Danish inhabitants. I will not say whether this suspicion is well-founded or not. All I will say is that it is the universal belief of these Danish-minded people in Schleswig.
I do, therefore, plead with His Majesty's Government to adopt the well-founded suggestion made by the Danish Government to give this purely Danish land autonomy and self-administration. That is a very moderate wish. I do implore His Majesty's Government to give it further consideration. If this Kiel agreement is being violated today, what is going to happen when the British troops have been withdrawn and there is no longer any security whatsoever that the Kiel agreement will be carried out? The Danes believe that it will be a dead letter just like the Fifth Article of the Treaty of Prague, which I have quoted, and which was never put into force in spite of the solemn promise of Prussia that a plebis-

cite would be held in the northern part of Schleswig. I go further and say that while for the moment the people would be satisfied with an administration independent of Kiel, I believe that something further is needed.
We might take as a precedent the Clause in the Treaty of Versailles which gave the territory of the Saar the right after 15 years to hold a plebiscite and enact in making our final treaty with Germany that after 15 years there shall be a plebiscite for Schleswig. Fifteen years would bring us to the year 1964. How better could we commemorate the centenary of the forcible occupation against all international law of Schleswig than by holding a plebiscite in accordance with which I firmly believe that the people would vote for reunion with Denmark from which they were separated solely by violence.
May I, in conclusion, express two wishes? May I live to see the day when the ancient prophecy will be fulfilled and the King of Denmark on his white horse will advance into South Schleswig and occupy the country just as his noble and heroic father did in 1920, when on his white horse he entered North Schleswig and reunited North Schleswig to the mother country.
My second wish is this: May I live to see the day when the famous lion of Isted which was put up by the Danes to commemorate their great victory over the Prussians, but which, when the Prussians advanced in 1864, was removed by them and carried off to Berlin will be restored to its ancient site. I am thankful to say that the Americans, when they occupied that district of Berlin, discovered this lion and gave it as a present to the King of Denmark. May I express this second hope, that once more this famous lion of Isted, which I saw recently in the arsenal in Copenhagen, will recline in the cemetery at Flensburg where once more it will commemorate the death of the heroic Danish soldiers who fought to defend their country against the Prussian invader. When I walked over that battlefield, I could not refrain from plucking a bouquet of heather to take home to my wife as a memory of the glorious victory of these noble Danes of Isted. May the lion which commemorates that victory once more recline in its own place in the cemetery of Flensburg above the graves of the heroic dead.

2.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The House cannot complain that the hon. Gentleman has treated this subject in any cursory manner, or that the historic introduction to the subject which he gave was in any way skimped or inadequate. What I have to ask myself is how much of the very lengthy speech we have heard touches on questions which are the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. If I may so say, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's views on the onslaught of Napoleon III on Mexico; I never liked it; I do not like it now; but whether it is for me now to answer for these ancient wrongs I am not so clear. I also agree with him about the Treaty of Prague. I think it was a great error of Palmerston not to have made more specific the articles to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Professor Savory: Palmerston was dead then.

Mr. Mayhew: I think I am correct in saying that he negotiated the Prague agreement, and I am not now prepared to defend even Palmerston's ghost.
Let me say immediately that we should consider to what extent the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Danish minority and to what extent perhaps he should have made clear that he was expressing, views held by the Danish Government. It would have been possible, listening to him, to suppose that many of the very wild and extravagant ideas which he put forward were ideas held by the Danish Government. It would, I know, be an embarrassment, both to them and to other countries, if that were suggested, and I know the hon. Gentleman would not wish to press that point.
There were four points in the speech to which I think I can reply. First, the minority rights of the Danish-minded people; secondly, the possible separation of the administration of South Schleswig from that of Holstein; thirdly, the plebiscite; and fourthly, the vitally important and grave problem of the refugees. If I can say something briefly about those four points I think I shall have taken out of the hon. Gentleman's speech those parts to which it is possible for a Government spokesman to reply.
First, the question of the protection of minority rights. Thanks largely to the direct intervention of the British Government and to advice they have given to the German authorities, very considerable rights and privileges belong to the Danish - minded minority in South Schleswig. I do not think that is denied by the Danish-minded minority themselves; the rights they have been granted in the Kiel Agreement are considered sufficient by them. What anxieties there are, if there are anxieties, consist in the safeguarding of those rights and their maintenance rather than in the actual rights themselves. The minority rights in general are guaranteed by the basic law in Germany—a basic law which can be changed only with the consent of the occupying authority. That is the first safeguard.
They now have this declaration, ratified by the South Schleswig Land Government and by the British in September last, which takes large steps forward in the implementation of the basic principles of the basic law. The provisions are that there shall be no restriction on the joining of Danish-minded associations; that their children can speak and be taught Danish; that there shall be no disabilities on their entry into the public services; and that there shall be broadcasting facilities for the Danish-minded minority. Special provisions are made for complaints about breaches or infringements of the agreement. I should say that as far as formal guarantees go no one could ask for better; and I know of minorities who could ask for as much and get a great improvement on the present state of affairs.
What matters now is the spirit in which this agreement is implemented. Here I must say about the hon. Gentleman's speech that its tone and its lack of balance in presentation are, in my view, not helpful to the future success of the working of this agreement. What we need on both sides is patience and good will in carrying out this agreement. What is needed, therefore, is undoubtedly some restraint on both sides and the capacity to see the difficulties; and I cannot help feeling that in this difficult situation, which requires patience and good will on both sides, it is not helpful to stir up the emotions by undoubtedly political and one-sided statements such as we have just heard.

Professor Savory: I did everything I could to pour oil on the troubled waters during the whole of my visit to South Schleswig and Denmark.

Mr. Mayhew: Well, the waters are not very troubled, and in my view the oil was not particularly soothing. I should have thought it would have been more helpful to have urged the necessity for the Germans to understand the undoubted rights of the Danish minority, and for the Danish minority to realise that certain schemes—such as the one for separate administration, which the hon. Gentleman put forward—are wholly impracticable.
The question of a separate administration has been referred to several times, but I think it is impracticable. In the first place, there is the size of the area concerned. In any case, there are fewer than half a million permanent inhabitants in that area, and Schleswig-Holstein as a whole is already the smallest Land in the whole of Western Germany. To make it into a separate administration would be a political anomaly.
Moreover, it is not economically viable; its industry is tiny—only 10 per cent. of Schleswig-Holstein as a whole; it raises only 25–35 per cent. of the taxation of that Land as a whole; it has only a fraction of the share of the inter-zonal trade of Schleswig-Holstein; and to impose on the German Governmental structure a system in which we do not believe ourselves would, it seems to me, be most unlikely, to succeed.
Nor do I agree that such a scheme is necessarily supported by the majority of even the Danish-minded people in the area. I think that to set up such a governmental structure would probably be regarded with hostility and suspicion by other Laender Governments, and would be economically wrong and politically very unwise. That deals with the second point.
We now come to the much more important point, on which I felt far more sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Gentleman—the question of refugees in this area. Undoubtedly, this is still a very grave problem. We quite understand the fears of the Danish Government that in the future it may constitute a serious threat to the frontier. I do not quarrel with the map which I understand

the hon. Gentleman will be so good as to show me after this Debate. I have not checked the figures, but it is true that on percentage the population of Schleswig-Holstein is bearing far more than its share of the refugee problem in Germany.
However, let me make clear once again that, whereas the inflow of refugees over the inter-zonal frontier forming part of the international relations of the German Government is a matter for His Majesty's Government, the distribution of refugees within the German Federal Government area is now no longer reserved to us, and is not a responsibility of His Majesty's Government. That does not, of course, mean to say that we shall not help the German authorities in any way we can with this grave problem. We shall certainly do so.
The Federal Government is at the moment, I understand, considering additional measures to meet this problem, including the redistribution within the next two years of 600,000 of the refugees, half of whom will come from Schleswig-Holstein. That would, if successful, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, make a great difference and be a great improvement. However, I agree that the problem is very serious. I think the hon. Gentleman may agree that in the past the British Government have played a very active part in this. We discussed it fully and frankly with the Danish Government. We had a conference under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, my colleague, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, and as a result some measure of alleviation was achieved. Some transfer to the French zone, in particular, has been achieved. That transfer will go on.
The refugee problem in Germany as a whole is, of course, an appalling problem. There are 8 million refugees in Western Germany, so that the Schleswig-Holstein problem, grave though it is, is only part of the tremendous Western Germany problem, and the redistribution of these unfortunate refugees, which in any case is linked with the demand for labour and the housing situation all over Germany, is not something which can be done immediately; it is a stubborn problem which must be tackled with zeal but on which we cannot expect early and dramatic success.
Those, I hope, are the hon. Gentleman's three points. There was a fourth point


which the hon. Member raised—that about a plebiscite. He quoted a demand of the Danish Government, a request to our Ambassador, but that was in 1946. The hon. Gentleman did not take the story on from there.

Professor Savory: I did not quote any request of the Danish Government in this respect. I quoted only the request for local autonomy.

Mr. Mayhew: On the question of a plebiscite, we asked the Danish Government if they wished to exert themselves to secure frontier rectification, coupled with or separate from the question of a plebiscite, and, for reasons which the House will appreciate, they replied to us that they were not concerned with frontier rectification and that they made no claim for a plebiscite. That, I think, is a very material point when we consider the arguments advanced by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gammans: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means when he refers to the remarks of my hon. Friend—when he says that my hon. Friend was not entirely supported by the pro-Danish elements in the area? What does that mean? Will the Under-Secretary tell the House what representation he has received from the Danish Government or from other Scandinavian Governments?

Mr. Mayhew: The first point was on the confident assurances which we were given by the hon. Member for Queen's University that he had the support—the unanimous support, I think he said—of the Danish-minded population in the area for a separate administration. Whereas I cannot make any exact statement on that, I merely question it. I doubt it. It may be that not even a majority would support the hon. Member on this question, but I will not press the point because, obviously, it is a doubtful quantity. On the question of representation and the reference which the hon. Member for Queen's University made to an approach to the Foreign Secretary by some Ambassadors from some Scandinavian countries, I am afraid there is nothing I can say on that at the present time.

Mr. Gammans: Did they make representation?

Mr. Mayhew: I understand there were conversations on this problem—the

refugee problem—but I am not in a position to make a statement on it. I have done my best to cover the four points which the hon. Member for Queen's University raised and to give some account of the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards them.

Orders of the Day — COTTON INDUSTRY

2.44 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I am most grateful for the opportunity, provided at such short notice, of raising the subject of cotton. May I also say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I am sorry I could give him only such short notice, which must have inconvenienced him to some degree. When we talk about the staple industries of this country, we talk about coal, cotton, iron and steel and agriculture. Of those four major industries, it is my submission that, in the desperate economic straits in which we find ourselves in these years of our postwar recovery, cotton has done less towards helping our recovery than any of the other industries.
Any person with even a nodding acquaintance with pre-war Lancashire will have some knowledge of the dreadful conditions which existed there, particularly in the coal and cotton industries, and in what desperate plight many people in the cotton industry found themselves in those years of mass unemployment. In those years, when one went into a cotton town one found stark and empty mills, and chimneys thrust up into the sky, but smokeless. The position has changed tremendously since then and I, for one, welcome the pollution of the sky by the belching smoke from those chimneys, because it means full employment in an industry which can make a vital contribution to our recovery.
There have been vagaries in the history of cotton. Under private enterprise it has been thought fit sometimes to embark upon a policy of contraction and then a policy of expansion. There have been quotas and there have been all manner of devices for the purpose of manipulating the industry for the convenience of those who had a major profit-making interest in the industry. Today the position has greatly changed. Not only has the industry great responsibilities in shouldering its share of the burden


in recovery, but it also has great opportunities—opportunities provided to cotton for the first time, and certainly greater opportunities than those provided to any other industry in this country.
A fortnight ago the attention of the public was directed to the cotton industry because of the Cotton Board conference at Harrogate. Many worthies and many notabilities attended that conference, amongst them my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, and I believe, subject to confirmation, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. A fairly cordial atmosphere was generated throughout that conference, I understand. I have been reading some of the reports of the conference and I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends did not sometimes tend to deceive themselves because of the superficial atmosphere of cordial goodwill which was generated. It is my considered view, and it has been given to me by various agencies in the past four years, that a very substantial section of the cotton industry, particularly on the employer's side, is not well disposed towards this Government. I think that in stating that fact and in passing it on to the Government, I am rendering some service.
I expected there would be a great deal of reference at that cotton conference to the operation of the Cotton Spinning Re-equipment Act, but I found there was only a passing reference to it. That Act provided an opportunity for stimulating the spinning section of the industry to a greater degree than anything known in the industry previously. Originally, it was intended to last for only one year. It enabled mill owners to group themselves together in units of, I think, 400,000 spindles. They would then qualify for a subsidy of 25 per cent. under the Act.
I have never yet heard, in the industry of this country, of any measure of subsidy approaching that of the 25 per cent. which was offered in this case. One might imagine that there would be enough public-spirited employers in the industry who would leap at this opportunity of using the subsidy for the purpose not only of re-equipping and putting their own house in order but for the wider, public-spirited and national purpose of helping this tremendous industry to play its part

in the export trade, particularly in the dollar area, and to play its part in supplying cotton wear and cotton apparel at home.
I put some questions to the President of the Board of Trade as recently as yesterday and while it is true that, because of the failure of the Act in its first year, it had to be extended for a second year, which expires on 1st April, 1950, all the information I have obtained goes to show that the operation of the Act during its first year was a miserable, pathetic and abject failure. The second year has shown some slight improvement, but that improvement is not sufficient and illustrates how there is a wilful refusal on the part of cotton spinners to take advantage of the subsidy in order to re-equip themselves and help the nation.
I want to absolve those public-spirited employers and mill owners who have been broadminded and progressive enough not only to re-equip under the provisions of the Act, but who re-equipped before the Act came into force. I have had correspondence with mill owners who, I understand, began to re-equip directly after the end of the war, All the more credit to them. But there is a substantial number in the industry who have not done as they should have done—re-equipped with the aid of the 25 per cent. subsidy.
I do not want to over-simplify this problem, but I think there are three broad reasons for it: first, I believe there is a very deep-rooted prejudice on the part of certain employers against taking any action which might help themselves because it might help the Government as well. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) may shake his head, but he was one of those referred to yesterday as having invoked the term "Quisling" about a minority of employers who were prepared to co-operate with the Government. I will not be so venomous in the use of such a term; I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to find another label for those employers who still refuse to co-operate with the Government.
I was referring to those who, I believe, are prejudiced against the Government. During the Cotton Board conference Professor Devons seemed to indicate this frame of mind by deprecating the use of automatic looms, and he was answered by the managing director of British


Northrop, Ltd. the foremost manufacturers of automatic looms, who said—I can only paraphrase—"The Professor and those of like mentality are content to utilise in industry the legacy of their grandfathers." He said they were prepared to use looms left to them by their grandfathers 50 years ago. That is absolutely true about this important section of the industry.
In the second category there are those in the industry, business men, who have to weigh the merits of a proposal with regard to re-equipment and the capital outlay involved and one cannot blame them. They say that some of the textile machinery is not as up to date as it might be and propose to wait a little later until they can obtain more modern and more efficient equipment. The major manufacture of this textile machinery is carried on by Textile Machinery Manufactures—a company whose largest factory is in my Division and which, I believe is working at only one-third or a half of its capacity. If it be true that the machinery that is manufactured and available for cotton spinners in Lancashire is not of the best, it is up to Platt Brothers—the name of the subsidiary—to take the hint, and take it rapidly, by embarking on research that will lead to the provision of new machines which will satisfy cotton spinners.
The third category consists of those who are reluctant to invest in re-equipment on the lines I have indicated. They say, "While there is such a conservative mentality among members of the trade unions in the industry, while we are in doubt as to whether we shall get a sufficient return for our capital outlay because of this Luddite philosophy and mentality in the industry, we are not prepared to re-equip and reinvest in other cotton mills and take advantage of the Government subsidy." I have been laying strictures upon the employers, but it equally behoves me to say a word or two about the trade unionists in the industry, who have equal responsibility in making their industry as progressive as possible.
I regret to say that it has come to my knowledge that in the cotton industry there is to be found a conservatism which is nowhere to be found in any other trade union element of industry. That attitude is most unfair, not only to their trade

union comrades in the coal, iron and steel, engineering and agricultural industries, but is also unfair to their fellow citizens and to their country. I hope something will be done, not necessarily as a result of this short Adjournment Debate, to create a new spirit among cotton workers, and impress upon them the fact that bceause we are going ahead in re-equipping this industry with new machinery they will not necessarily be thrown out of work in five or 10 years' time.
I suspect that at the root of their distrust of new machinery is the legacy of old-time conditions and bitterness and hardship that were prevalent when so many thousands were thrown on the scrapheap. I hope they will realise that in the Labour Government they have economic security, and that if the industry becomes efficient they will not suffer as a consequence, because we propose to promote full employment as a permanency in industry. I think I ought to read an item relating to this attitude of mind on the part of trade unionists in the industry. It is as follows:
A particular firm arranged a ballot among the whole of their employees who agreed, by a very substantial majority, to work a third shift. This shift came into operation and proved a success in producing full output, to meet an increasing dollar-earning order book. Subsequently, a member of the overlookers' union objected to working under the agreement arrived at and complained to his union. Shortly afterwards this particular firm was advised that the third shift must be discontinued, otherwise strike action would be taken. This mill reverted to a two-shift principle, and is at the moment negotiating to get back to full production as outlined.
I have two other cases which illustrate that point, but I do not propose to weary the House by quoting them. This is a wrong mentality, particularly in view of the need for increased production.
I mentioned earlier the question of textile machinery. On a number of occasions my hon. Friend the Senior Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) and my hon. Friend the Junior Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and myself have raised the question of redundancy of labour in the manufacture of textile machinery. It is a very serious matter. Yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade answered a Question relating to the increased competition we were facing from Japan in regard to textiles and textile machinery. From my own knowledge, we have


already suffered as a consequence of this competition in regard to our orders in India and elsewhere, owing to the cheap labour conditions in Japan under the MacArthur administration. If that is the case, and if we are faced with declining prospects abroad for our textile machinery, then it is up to the Government to do what they can to make this section of the industry as efficient as possible in order to enable it to compete in the markets abroad, apart altogether from whatever representations it may wish to make at a Government level to either the American authorities or to the MacArthur administration.
It was because of that fact that I had a Question down yesterday about the number of factories in this country which the Government own and lease to private enterprise. The answer I received was that some 1,300 factories were involved. That is a very considerable number which could very well be utilised in the national effort if the factories were concerned with the right sort of production, especially for export to the dollar areas. If in the case of the factory of Platt Brothers it is not working to capacity—and I have every reason to believe that it is not, and this may apply equally to other Government-leased factories—I cannot see why we cannot get back to a policy of concentrating certain of the resources of firms in the factories that are available and allowing these factories to be used for other purposes.
For instance, if the Austin Motor Car Company or the Morris Motor Car Company require more factory space owing to their success in the export field, why could not the Barton factory in my Division, which is one of the most up to date in the world, be used for the production of motor-cars, or, in fact, for anything else connected with our vital dollar exports? On this matter of available factory space, therefore, I believe that the Government ought to do something about making a survey of factories leased to private enterprise.
I will now turn to one other point with regard to the cotton industry as a whole. Some time ago, because of the more plentiful supply of cotton yarn, the President of the Board of Trade discarded certain controls. In answer to a Question which I put to him yesterday, it was revealed that the Yarn Spinners'

Association are now maintaining a price ring. Whereas my right hon. Friend discarded controls in order to allow prices to reach a normal modest level, a price ring is now being maintained by the Yarn Spinners' Association, thus keeping up the price of yarn to a minimum at which they can earn handsome profits. Whatever merits there may be in that from the point of view of profits, this anti-social practice is having adverse repercussions on the cost of cotton to the industry at home and to our vital exports abroad.
I thought that the President of the Board of Trade gave me a very weak and ineffective answer when he said that this is a matter which may be referred to the Monopolies Commission because it seems to savour of monopoly. Of course it savours of monopoly, but it is not the sort of thing that a Government Department ought to refer to the Monopolies Commission. We have power to stop this monopoly which is antisocial and a danger to our export policy, and I believe we have power to say to the Yarn Spinners' Association that we are going to stop them from maintaining a fixed price ring and that they will have to allow the price to reach its normal level in an ordinary commercial market. I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will say something about that.
There is one other point with regard to the Yarn Spinners' Association. Not only have we got this peculiar capitalist outlook with regard to monopoly and a price ring, but the ex-Cotton Controller and some of his staff are actually housed in the premises used by the old Cotton Control and engaged in this restrictive arrangement. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will look into it.
I suggested a little while ago, in a letter to the "Manchester Guardian," that, in view of the cotton industry being burdened by a restrictive outlook and by restrictive action on the part of trade unionists in some respects, the time was ripe for an inquiry. There was an inquiry and a report on weaving in the cotton industry under Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, and I believe that there should be a fresh report on the industry by a panel, if necessary, set up by Manchester University. Something must be done about this vital industry which can help not only our dollar export earnings but


our trade all over the world and our supply of commodities to the public at home in much cheaper and greater quantities.
It would be out of Order if I were to advocate legislation, but may I paraphrase a passage from the Cotton Working Party Report of 1946? In this report there was a minority viewpoint expressed by Mr. Andrew Naesmith—who is the most prominent trade unionist in the cotton industry—and others working with him.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): Will my hon. Friend please tell me to what report he is referring?

Mr. Austin: I am talking about the Working Party Report on cotton. Mr. Andrew Naesmith and his colleagues, who formed the trade union minority, quarrelled with some of the views of others who had been appointed. They implied that if the industry were not to operate in the best interests of the nation, then nationalisation was the only alternative. I submit that to my hon. Friend, and perhaps in the circumstances he will consider whether we might not revive something in the nature of the working party coming to the country with a progress report of achievements in the industry and of its defects.
I believe that this question applies not only to cotton but to industry in general. Are we taking advantage of the powers we have? Earlier I referred to the Supplies and Services Act, which provides the Government with tremendous powers that they could and should exercise in the interests of the nation. For example, in wartime the criterion was not the amount of profit but the amount of production necessary for the prosecution of the war, and where an industry was not doing its best the Government had power to requisition a factory. That happened in the case of Short Bros., it happened in the case of General Aircraft, it has happened in the field of agriculture in the case of many farmers who were not farming efficiently and whose land was taken over by the war agricultural committees to be used in the interests of the nation.
We have other sanctions which we can apply to those elements in industry that

will not respond to exhortation and goodwill. We have the sanction of the diversion of raw materials. If we do not supply a man with raw materials because he is not playing the game, he will soon learn to respond. We have the sanction of diverting labour from those who will not support the nation in this critical time; and if a producer cannot have the labour for his industry, he will soon mend his ways and reform—at least, that is my view of the Government's powers.
Finally, I believe, as has been evidenced by the result of the by-election in North Kensington, that the country appreciates what the Government are doing. I believe that beneath the superficial quibbles and criticisms which we get from people about their rations or certain other of the difficulties which today face us all, there is a deep-rooted appreciation of what the Government have done. There is an appreciation of what is meant by social security; an appreciation of full employment and of the welfare State. It may be an unconscious appreciation, but it is there. What people are asking today is that the ethics employed in government, which have relieved many people of untold distress and misery, must be matched by an economy equally to be used and directed in the interests of the nation.
We on this side of the House at least must turn our minds in the direction suggested by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who made one of his most unusual interventions in the industrial field in a speech a few evenings ago. He said that where industrialists will not co-operate with the Government, the Govern-must review their powers with a view to making that industry and that employer co-operate. This is a testing time for the Government. These critical days provide us with an opportunity of utilising the resources of the nation in the interests of the nation. I hope that because of this the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will take some notice of what I have said about making a beginning in the cotton industry, which badly needs a firm and resolute hand and a new lead from the Government.

3.13 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I did not intend to intervene but the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) has made so many perfectly outrageous statements, which do little service to the industry, to


the Government—as, I feel sure, the Parliamentary Secretary would be prepared to admit privately if not publicly—or to the country, that I must do so. The hon. Member has given very good reasons why the attitude of some employers towards the Government is not particularly agreeable. The suggestion that any one can get hold of employers, in cotton or any other industry, and start banging their heads together, with the imposition of sanctions of all kinds to make them do what, apparently, the hon. Member says they do not want to do, is a perfectly absurd judgment of the present situation.
I have always been prepared to admit, in this House and elsewhere, that both the employers and the employees in the cotton industry are obstinate. In fact, almost the entire population of the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire are obstinate by nature. Many things which ought to have been done in the industry have been left undone, largely because of obstinacy and pettiness. There is one man in this country who is more responsible for the lack of progress in the cotton industry than anyone else: he is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was he who, 18 months after the war, allowed the Lancashire cotton industry hardly any aid at all; and when the interim policy was produced by the Board of Trade it was left to the working party to find out all about the industry and then to come back and explain their findings to the Chancellor.
The result was that no real action was taken in the industry for almost two years; and up to 1947 and, I believe, the early part of last year, we had the extraordinary spectacle of textile exports being roughly only one-third of their pre-war volume.

Mr. Austin: The hon. Gentleman said that no real action was taken by the Government until 1947. Is he aware that within three months of the election of this Government—that was in October, 1945—a working party was appointed to examine the cotton industry and that it reported in 1946?

Mr. Shepherd: That is what I am objecting to. I say that what required doing for the Lancashire cotton industry had already been determined and was in the offices of the Board of Trade when

the war ended, and that instead of getting immediate action, we had the working party sorting out the problems which were already pretty well known to those connected with the industry. Then we had interminable discussions upon the report of the working party. The result was that nothing positive was done until at least two years after it might have been started. The recruitment of labour, to which I agree great energy has been devoted in the last 18 months, was almost completely neglected for a time.
I say that it is due to the fact that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer misinterpreted the situation and also to the fact that no one went into Lancashire and really tried to get things going. I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be put into Lancashire to get things going. He would have no more response from the people of Lancashire than an iceberg. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do it himself, but if he had not the personality to appeal to the people of Lancashire, he ought to have got someone to do it. If anyone bears the full responsibility for Lancashire not getting back to its position as quickly as it ought to have done, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Stretford has made the most extraordinary allegations against people who have not operated the Cotton Spinning (Re-equipment Subsidy) Act. When the Bill was put forward, the Opposition made it clear that they believed that it could not succeed in the form in which it was presented. I have tried to find out the reason for the absurd retention of the 400,000 spindles limit. Everybody knows that that limit is the reason why the Act has not been operating. The Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head, but that is why the Act has not been implemented. It is for the very good reason that people are not prepared to enter into financial manipulations to get the advantage of the subsidy in cases where the limit is 400,000 spindles or in certain cases, such as with certain vertical organisations, where the limit is as low as 250,000 spindles.
What the Opposition then prophesied has come about. It is the Government's fault in trying to be too rationalistic in their outlook and trying to force something upon the mills. Our view is that if a factory can be certified as being pretty


up to date, it ought to have the advantage of the subsidy. I am sure that if that had been put into operation we should have seen a much more effective result than we do now.
The hon. Member for Stretford catalogued a list of objections to re-equipment on the part of individual employers. It is true that some of those arguments have some substance, but another factor is that the cost of re-equipment today is extremely high, and in the disturbed condition of world markets it is very doubtful whether some employers would be advised to indulge in heavy capital expenditure which the subsequent price level of the industry might not justify. Many employers have very carefully to consider whether they can afford the cost of re-equipment at present. They would be doing the industry generally a grave disservice if they launched into capital expenditure which was subsequently proved not to be justified. The House ought to be reminded of that.
The most important thing which the hon. Member and any hon. Member can do so far as the cotton industry is concerned is to try to speed up the process of re-deployment. At a meeting we had upstairs about 18 months ago it was said in reply to a question which I asked at the end of the meeting that it would take 20 years to re-deploy the Lancashire cotton industry. That is far too long. We can, without exaggeration, by re-deployment get at least 25 per cent. more output from the existing industry. That is the most important thing we can do in the industry and for the industry at the present time.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he gets all the Members of Parliament on his own side of the House while they still represent Lancashire—there will be many fewer of them in Lancashire in a short time—to go round the cotton towns in an endeavour to secure greater approval for this policy of re-deployment, because nothing can be more valuable to the industry than a wider acceptance of re-deployment—much wider than obtains at present.

Mr. John Edwards: I was interested in the point which the hon. Member was making but I cannot see any good reason why I should confine my efforts to Mem-

bers who sit on this side of the House. I should have thought if this was worth doing, everyone should be doing it. I regret that he contracts out.

Mr. Shepherd: Oh, no, I did not, contract out because I have now been pressing this point for two years in this House and elsewhere. Obviously it is as much the duty of Conservative Members as of Labour Members to press this point. There are men in the unions in Lancashire who are doing extraordinarily good work in this direction, but there is a terrific amount of prejudice against it. The Government must make a greater effort still to obtain a degree of re-deployment which will save the industry.
The most discouraging thing that has happened to the cotton industry is the action of the Government in devaluing the £. The enormous increase in the cost of material is causing grave concern to manufacturers. Not only do we have in the ordinary way bad materials which are poor to work with and the making up of which into good quality finished articles causes great difficulty, but we are now having these enormous increases in the price of cotton. All the efforts of the Government will be required to satisfy the manufacturers that they will be in a more competitive position as a result of devaluation than they were before. Many feel that they will be in a less competitive position overseas than before.
I have made these few observations because I feel that much of what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) said was really in the wrong spirit so far as solving the problem of Lancashire is concerned, if it can be solved. Let us remember that the Lancashire textile industry is in a most difficult situation. It may be that we shall never recover fully the overseas markets we had before the last war. In fact, I believe it to be the view of the Board of Trade that we shall not get them back. Therefore, we have a great battle to fight which will not best be fought by individuals such as the hon. Member for Stretford simply kicking the employers around. It will have to be done by an effort to eradicate prejudice and affection for old-fashioned or traditional methods which exist among the employees just as much as among the employers.
The Government will have to make greater efforts. I am sorry that we had


the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Board of Trade in 1945. If, in 1945, we had had another man to do that job and if he had seen the problem in Lancashire and talked to the people there, the textile industry might be in a much better state today. That is past history, and I hope that in the few remaining months left to this Government, they will do all they can to get the textile industry on its way. They have not done enough in the last 12 months to justify the expectations we had of them a few years ago.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Parkin: I hope that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the line of argument he took. It is a good thing to have as many discussions of practical industrial problems as possible and I am glad that he has brought this matter forward. I come from an area which has a considerably older textile industry, the woollen textile industry.
I want to follow up one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford in connection with machinery and to ask further questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. I was very alarmed to hear my hon. Friend speak as though the machinery industry were going downhill and working part time, and to hear him suggest that some other occupation should be found for the factories designed for the industry. I do not think that motorcars offer much hope, in view of the fact that the motorcar factories are not working to full capacity. I want particularly to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can tell us something more about the Government's policy in regard to textile machinery.
When the Evershed Report came out—it is a very interesting document—we were all given to understand that the textile machinery monopoly had taken certain decisions, with the utmost goodwill and determination, to put their house in order, expand the industry and bring it up to date to meet the needs of re-equipment. We were also given to understand that we must naturally expect them to concentrate all their energies upon the textile industry which was in direst and most immediate need. That was cotton. I am sorry to say that the task does not occupy them to the full and that it is time that other textile industries began to press

their claims a little and to ask the Government a few questions about the textile machinery industry in general.
I should like to know, for instance, how much research and development are going on in machinery for other textile industries, particularly woollens. We must not forget the man-made fibres of one kind or another which will develop, in the long run, a type of machine not necessarily as closely related to the older machinery as is the case at the present time. I should like to know what co-operation there is between the technological research resources available to the Government and those available to the machinery monopoly. There is ample precedent for the Government to give help. I believe that my hon. Friend's Department is still in charge of the flax research station. I wonder whether any corresponding research is going on about machinery to weave the alternative to flax, which is rayon and which has made so much progress recently.
Finally, I want to ask if the Government have any views or intentions about helping textile machinery, not only by the method of subsidy which is very often clumsy, but by entering into a sort of partnership with the industry in the same spirit and with the same enthusiasm that the Government are showing now in the Export Credits Guarantee Department. That department is willingly co-operating with private firms and guaranteeing a large part of their market surveys and advertising campaigns to sell goods abroad. The Government are in that case content to remain a partner with the private firm as long as the private firm desires it, giving help but not exercising control.
Something of the same kind could be done in the case of machinery. Of course, there is ample precedent in the steps taken in war-time to get up-to-date machines installed on loan wherever they were most urgently required. I hope to learn that the Government have not sat back and allowed the textile machinery industry only to concentrate its efforts on the cotton industry. I hope that plans are well advanced not only for the maintenance of this industry but for its expansion for export reasons as well as others in the near future. Lastly, on the point of exports, I should like to ask what is the priority today between export and home needs in the matter of textile machinery.

3.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): A number of points have been made which have covered a wide field. A good deal of attention has been paid by my hon. Friends to the matter of textile machinery. At such short notice I am not able to deal with those points of detail that have been raised which are not the responsibility of the Board of Trade but that of the Minister of Supply. If the kind of details about the industry which have been mentioned are really required, then they must be obtained from him.

Mr. Parkin: Surely the Ministry of Supply must base its own plans upon the overriding policy enunciated by the Board of Trade. In what way can the Ministry of Supply make its plans for the production of machinery if it does not know the mind of the Board of Trade and the Government in general on the question of textiles—the right fibres to be used, where they are to be obtained, and what is to be done with them?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is quite right, but that does not alter the fact that the Department concerned with textile machinery happens to be the Ministry of Supply. They are the people who talk to the trade about research facilities, and so on. I was saying that, important though these matters are, they do not happen to be points which at a moment's notice I ought to be required to answer. I have taken very careful note of all that has been said and I will see that the points are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and that, in due course, such information as he is able to give is passed on to my hon. Friends.
I begin by agreeing entirely about the very great importance of this industry. It is central to our purposes both in respect of our home needs and in the contribution which it can make overseas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) seemed to speak, I thought, a little disparagingly of the Harrogate Conference. That is a pity. In fact, there were some 1,300 people there, of whom the overwhelming majority were representatives of cotton firms or cotton trade unions. Since there does not happen to be another industry in the country which could hold such a conference, it

seems to me that, however short it may have fallen in my hon. Friend's estimation, it was a thoroughly desirable conference to arrange. I wish that more industries were in a position to do that, and not least the industry about which the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) spoke a few days ago—the clothing industry. This, of course, is one of the benefits of having a good development council.
In particular, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford misunderstood the point that Professor Devons made at Harrogate. I was there, and if I understood what Professor Devons was saying aright, it was that he had sought very hard and tried to find adequate cost material on the basis of which to decide whether it was a good thing to instal automatics or not. He had come to the conclusion that there was singularly little cost material available. On the very scanty material which he had he put forward a tentative view, but the moral which all of us who were present at the conference should draw is not a moral about the use of automatic machinery, but the moral whether indeed, if this adequate cost material were available, we should be able to form a more intelligent judgment on the whole matter of installations of machinery of various kinds.

Mr. Austin: I do not want to do an injustice to the professor, who cannot answer for himself, but, surely, the attitude of mind of the professor has been responsible for the issue of a statement by the managing director of British Northrop Looms, Ltd., to the effect that they were relying on the legacy of their grandfathers?

Mr. Edwards: But it was suggested that Professor Devons was reactionary, and I do not think he was anything of the kind. To make him say anything that even remotely suggests that automatic looms are not the last word, would result in anybody who speaks for automatic looms taking up the other side. So much the better for that, and that was one of the merits of the Harrogate Conference. I am not taking sides in the matter at all, except to say that the main point which Professor Devons made at Harrogate was that we should have some better cost material in order to take intelligent decisions rather than take decisions without all the details that are really necessary.
It is said by my hon. Friend, and it was also suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that we have not really got as much out of the Cotton Spinning (Re-equipment Subsidy) Act as we expected. In general, I agree, but for rather different reasons from those which have been advanced. First, in respect of the number of spindles which we brought in to qualify. The hon. Member for Buck-low is wrong. We have been accepting groups of about 250,000 spindles and they have not all been vertical. The number of groups which have registered is 28, which is the equivalent of 59 per cent. of the spindles in the industry, and we say that this has brought within the scope of the scheme a fairly high proportion of the cotton industry, and I have no reason to believe that the qualifications of the group have proved unduly restrictive.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Is it not true to say that, since the Board of Trade have been more lenient over the number of spindles involved, they have received more acceptances, and that, if this figure of 400,000 had not been insisted on in the first place, we should have got a much better response?

Mr. Edwards: I really should deny that. The point is that we have got about 60 per cent. in at present, and it looks as if there may be one or two others as well. The real trouble does not arise there, and the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It arises when we come to consider the progress made in actual modernisation. There are over 280 mills in the approved groups and we hoped to receive modernisation proposals in respect of about two-thirds of that number. Today, modernisation proposals have been received in respect of 60 mills. I hope that we can expect more, especially as the contracts do not have to be placed until 5th April, 1950.
The general indication so far is that the groups are holding back. There are economic as well as technical considerations here, and I know that at present firms are finding it necessary to increase their working capital for the financing of stocks, following devaluation and things of that kind, but, even making allowances for that, the progress made up to date is disappointing. The disappointment is not in respect of the groups registering but in respect of the progress that has

been made with the groups that have been registered; but it does not seem to me to be easy to go from there and say what should next be done.
There is the subsidy, which is a considerable inducement, but, it having been on offer, it does not seem to me that we have been able to urge the people to take up the offer in the long-term interests of the industry. Doubtless there are improvements to be made in textile machinery. The textile manufacturers—the T.M.M. which has been referred to—have, I am assured, a research organisation. Textile machinery research workers are at work in all the fields, and although I do not pretend to be an expert on this aspect of the matter, I should have thought that in recent times there had been a good shake-up in this industry and considerable progress had been made. Reference has been made to other difficulties, chief of which is said to be the conservative attitude of many of the trade unionists employed in the cotton industry.
We had hoped to proceed more rapidly than we have been able to with redeployment. On the spinning side, we are redeploying something like 30 mills a year; but that is not enough. I am not sure how many we should re-deploy a year, because the number would depend in some measure on the number of industrial consultants and similar expert people who would be available. On the weaving side, I think that the main obstacle to redeployment of Lancashire looms is the existing legalised uniform list. I think, however, that it is a matter of congratulation that both sides of the weaving industry look like reaching agreement in the near future on introducing the more rational system recommended by the Moelwyn Hughes Commission. I think that is a triumph for the leaders of both sides of the industry.
It remains to be seen whether agreement is completed and how quickly it will be possible for individual concerns and workers to get the most out of it. Knowing Lancashire as I do—and I have had fair experience of it since 1945 and in the years before the war—I would say that the efforts of the trade unions in the cotton industry, generally speaking, to rationalise their wage structure on the weaving side of the industry compare very


favourably with what has been done elsewhere in British industry.
I would wish that all other industries could be as far advanced as cotton on the manufacturing side is now in respect of an adequate wage structure. On the spinning side, we have further to go, and anything that any Member can do to help the move towards greater re-deployment is, I am sure, a very good thing. In present circumstances, with labour very short indeed, there can be no reason why both the workers and the employers should not stand to gain from increased productivity; and on the workers' side in the money which they take home at the end of the week. I am glad that very great attention has been paid in this discussion to their point of view.
The hon. Member for Bucklow seemed to take a great joy in attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his alleged failures when he was at the Board of Trade. I happen to have been in those days the Parliamentary Private Secretary under the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, knowing Lancashire, I think as well as the hon. Gentleman does, I would say that Lancashire liked my right hon. and learned Friend because he was straight, and because he was honest, and they liked him in contrast to many of the people who had been to see them in the years before the war because he did not come just for "a talk" but to get something done. The impression I formed in Manchester was that on the whole the Manchester community were very relieved to find somebody who, at any rate, meant business. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts about this, I would like him to look up the history of the relations of various successive Tory Governments in the years before the war with Lancashire, so that they may see how Lancashire was completely neglected, as a result of which we have many of today's problems. It is not for the hon. Gentleman, or anybody representing his party, to talk in these terms about my right hon. and learned Friend.
Moreover, let me say this to him. He seemed to be sure that in the archives of the Board of Trade at the end of the war there were all manner of schemes ready to be put into operation at once. There were in the archives of the Board

of Trade proposals coming over from the days before the war. But what kind of proposals were they? They were, almost without exception, restrictive proposals; proposals which were a carry-over from the time when the capacity was much greater than the demand. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong in supposing that there were at that point in time the kind of proposals that have since emerged in the working party reports and in the various wages and similar commissions. All that meant new work, and the Government were quite right to ask Sir George Schuster and his colleagues on both sides of industry to get down to the job of surveying the position afresh in the light of the circumstances as they were in 1945.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I do not deny, and indeed I think it is true, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made some impression among the business leaders in Lancashire, and that he was well received in Manchester. What I said was that he was incapable of making the appeal to the ordinary worker, which I thought ought to have been made at that time instead of allowing it to be delayed for two years. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary should be the last man to talk about the conditions between the wars as long as he belongs to a party which took pride in allowing sweated goods from Japan to flood the markets of this country. He also ought to know that immediately after the war it was extremely difficult because of Government restrictions, to make slight amenity changes in mills, which would have had the effect of attracting labour and would have done something to solve our problems. He ought to know that that was the position for at least 18 months after the end of the war.

Mr. Edwards: As always, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce certain irrelevancies to cover up the weaknesses of his earlier argument. I was merely pointing out that he was quite wrong about what had happened immediately after the end of the war, and no amount of talk now about something entirely different alters that fact.
I think it was quite right for the Government to put these inquiries in hand, and I am sure we have moved forward a good deal as a result of them.


We owe a lot to people like Sir George Schuster, Lord Evershed, and others like Mr. Moelwyn Hughes recently, because from their inquiries we have learned a lot. Nevertheless, I would not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford that the moral of it is: Let us have another full-dress inquiry. There are things that we want to know; there is no doubt about that; but we have got the Cotton Board, and I would hope that through the Cotton Board we can obtain the information required and make the inquiries that need to be made. I would not myself think that the time was ripe for anything like another thoroughgoing review of the industry, although we do need to know a certain number of things.
Let me now spend a moment or two on one other main point which is of particular concern to us: namely, the questions that have been raised about the operations of, in particular, the yarn spinners. In April last I went to Manchester and had some extremely useful discussions, which within a few days was followed by an agreement between my right hon. Friend and the various sections of the trade for a measure of decontrol, I think unparalleled in scope, when, as will be remembered, we at the Board of Trade were able to revoke a large number of orders—between 20 and 30—and to remove price control completely from everyone below the merchant converters on whom we left a ceiling price control—an overriding maximum control.
At the time, and still, I was anxious to make it plain that a simplified system of this kind would work only if all sections of the trade exercised moderation and restraint, and that if this did not happen the new system would be discredited. Personally, at any rate, I have been disappointed. I have not seen much evidence of the restraint which was the basis on which this big decontrol was carried out. It is obviously necessary in present circumstances, where changes in costs are taking place, for this matter to be reviewed again and for us to consider whether it is possible, where we have a perpetuation of a sellers' market, to go on leaving things alone, as we were most anxious to do from the point of view of flexibility and freedom to try out new methods which we thought would be desirable in Lancashire.
My hon. Friend referred to the operation of the Yarn Spinners' Association, and I cannot add to the answers which my right hon. Friend has given on this point, except perhaps this—and I think this is a point worth making—as far as I can see, most oft the business at the present time is being done at a higher price than the price in the yarn spinners' list. That does not mean that there may not be monopolistic elements here, but it means that at this moment the operation of the yarn spinners' list does not seem to be restrictive in the sense of putting prices up because most business is being done, if I am informed correctly above the list price.
Nevertheless, I would emphasise that if we are to have this kind of freedom from controls over a large part of the field, it can only be on the basis of restraint and on the basis of the whole industry being prepared to work together. It cannot work if each takes out absolutely everything which can be obtained, leaving the merchant converters in many cases in an impossible position.

Mr. Austin: Before my hon. Friend leaves that matter, may I point out that the question of the yarn spinners is very material? My hon. Friend has indicated that there is only one course of action and that is to refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission at some unspecified date. Is there no more effective and immediate action which the Board of Trade can take?

Mr. Edwards: I think my right hon. Friend made it plain yesterday that it is the Government's view that, in so far as we have to deal with monopolies, whether in the form of one big firm or of some price ring, the right way to deal with them is to refer them to the Monopolies Commission. In the field over which the Government have power to exercise price control—quite apart from any alleged monopoly, which need not come into the picture at all—it would be possible to use the authority we possess if that were thought desirable. As I say, I think there are good reasons why it is better not to do so, but I have been disappointed by the response which there has been to the freeing of such a large field of the cotton industry.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Is it the Government's view that the prices now being charged by the spinners are excessive, in view of the circumstances?

Mr. Edwards: I am not in a position to say either "yes" or "no" to that question. All I can say is that it does not look to me as if there had been that degree of restraint which I expected and on which I had an understanding when I was in Manchester and agreed to this big de-control.
My hon. Friend also talked about Government factories. Certainly, in respect of new factories and new tenants we are at present applying the test of dollar

saving or dollar earning. It would be difficult to do anything about existing factories, but in respect of those which are still going up, and those which become empty and into which we put new tenants, we now apply the dollar earning or dollar saving test. I think that completes the number of items to which I can give any reasonable replies, but in respect of detailed points about textile machinery I shall be glad to convey the views of my hon. Friend to the Minister of Supply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to Four o'Clock.